[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Cloud_Strife]

Hitler assumed power because people supported the Nazis because the commies tried overthrowing the government.

Yikes, this is some major historical revisionism.

 

[Zardnaar]

Im beginning to believe this is inevitable and that the left needs to start arming up for it. I mean **** we’ve got trump people running 14 word ads 88 times with blatant Nazi Extermination warning signs built into the ads.

it’s time to consider this is heading for a Krystallnacht type situation and if you know Murica the way I do you should be really nervous about what that means for the rest of the planet.

There's a mechanism to throw Trump out. Win the election.

If he steals it outright that's a separate issue.

He might legit win the election or even the popular vote. Personally I doubt it I think he's goneburger.

Bidens probably a transitional president. Maybe there's an FDR figure somewhere in the Dems for 2024. I think USA is going in the direction of a social democracy.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yikes, this is some major historical revisionism.

Not really the Nazis and Communists were battling it out on the streets.

In 1919 the Communists tried seizing power.

Fear of communism was a very real thing. With what Lenin/Trotsky and later Stalin were up to it wasn't an unreasonable fear.

If you escalate the violence you're going to get a counter escalation. And your side might not win.

 

[Crezth]

The US army that bastion of liberal ideals won't want to mow down peaceful protesters.

I'll take that bet.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'll take that bet.

They've already told Trump to politely F off. The last thing they want to do is police the streets.

Wouldn't be to surprised to see a repeat of the university shooting in the 70s where the national guard shot 3 people dead. Ohio iirc????

I don't see a Tianamen Square type massacre. They might use troops on rioting but that's not really peaceful protest.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Streets aren't running with blood.

Hitler assumed power because people supported the Nazis because the commies tried overthrowing the government.

The US army that bastion of liberal ideals won't want to mow down peaceful protesters. They might have no problem kicking far left revolutionary types violent though.

Utter BS.
The Communists tried to overthrow the government in 1918-1919. Hitler came to power 14 years later. One was not a direct consequence of the other.
The Wall Street Crash was probably the biggest factor. It led to a big rise in support for both the Communists and the Nazis.
Even so Hitler only gained power with the connivance of the conservatives.

 

[AmazonQueen]

And how long will it be until local, state, and the federal governments view further demands for concessions to no longer be reasonable? By which I mean calls to defund the police or to outright ban them. Governments will only reform the police, not get rid of them. To many of the protesters reform is just makeup on a hog as you put it.



Which further proves my point that the majority of citizens at home only view reform as reasonable, not defunding or getting rid of the police. Hence why the movement will be opposed more the further they keep pushing for such radical ideas.

If the Republicans offered real police reforms that might be true but since they haven't BLM continues to enjoy popular support.

 

[innonimatu]

Not really the Nazis and Communists were battling it out on the streets.

At least someone was battling them. Rather ineffectively as it turned out. But the Nazis got the full support of the state bureaucracy in 32. The same bureaucracy that worked to suppress as much as they could the german revolution of 1918, you know the one that overthrew the Kaiser and demanded social and political reforms. The one that went way beyond just communists.
And that happened in 32 because the communists were attempting to grab power, but merely because the communists might win an election in the future given how badly the germans were being treated by their governments.

In 1919 the Communists tried seizing power.
Fear of communism was a very real thing. With what Lenin/Trotsky and later Stalin were up to it wasn't an unreasonable fear.

So the germans in 1919 had a crystal ball tuned on Stalin's future? Or was it just that the SPD was willing to "contain" the revolution and assure the nobility and the industrialists that they'd keep control over the vast majority of lands and wealth in Germany?

 

[Zardnaar]

They used the freikorp on them in 1919 and that was an influence on the Nazi party in terms of recruitment.

Conservatives totally threw in with Hitler and co but yeah they feared the Communists along with a good chunk of the German Electorate.

Murdering the royal family did not go down well. China didn't do that, they kinda learnt I suppose.

Tsar was a fool but they murdered the wife and children as well. Plenty of people fled Russia after 1917.

"Let us seize power, we'll kill all your friends and family" not exactly a great platform.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I mean if you weren’t political and spend so much time on forums such as this I’d take this point sincerely. Instead I know you know about Trumps repeated escalation of violent rhetoric explicitly when it come to police cracking skulls. So take this kite and go fly it in friendlier neighborhoods.

Well even if you're correct (which you're not), the question isn't about what i think or know, the question is about what the average American voter thinks or knows, since the point was about what they will do in response to current events. The claim is made that large numbers of people link police violence to Trump, which is an odd claim to make since literally no one is making the claim that the problems with the police stretch back only a few years.

 

[caketastydelish]

The problem with "get rid of the police" is that it puts a whole bunch of thugs who are prone to violence out of work.

Not particularly worried about this. The only difference is right now their violence is almost guaranteed to be legal because it's state sanctioned.

Back in the day we had a solution for out-of-work Nazis...

I'm talking exile, of course. So long, murderous pigs!

While I like this solution a lot, I fear it won't be realistically implemented. What is more likely to happen, is it being a literal matter life and death for both the cops - and the protestors. Because we are already seeing that now. Doesn't take a large stretch of the imagination to only see it continue to increase.

her wish.

Crezth is male unless went through a transgender process from the last time Crezth was on the forum, many years ago.

They're taking down statues of the Founding Fathers now.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/protesters-portland-oregon-topple-george-washington-statue/

George Washington, woof!

Can't say I agree with this...

Yeah they also tore down a Ulysses S Grant statue. Generally, I think iconoclasm is inevitable in a situation like this, which is why I was so blasé about the idea of the protestors moving on to the Founders. But if you look at the Francis Scott Key video:

https://twitter.com/jrivanob/status/1274189302151299073?s=21

They’re acting like they’ve already won. What kinda chant is “next one” lol.

I’m sure the elites would rather the people were tearing down statues than, well, tearing down the system. So this may seem like a good distraction but it’s momentary. Eventually, there won’t be any more statues to tear down, or people will realize tearing down statues doesn’t do much.

The major concern should be that black voices are centered. White iconoclastic hangers-on may have good intentions but BLM isn’t about statues.

Taking down the statues (and flags) of 1) traitors 2) losers demanding participation trophies 3) a short-lived country made explicitly for a white supremacist purpose is one thing. Something that I wholeheartedly support. Grant fought AGAINST slavery so taking his statue down is something else, that I cannot. Same with the founding father of this country. I'm not saying I longer respect BLM or support them, but this makes me think less of the movement to some extent.

You make valid points about all the flags you mentioned. Mississippi is the blatant offender, with Georgia right behind them. I can handwave the rest.

Ditto.

 

[Crezth]

They've already told Trump to politely F off. The last thing they want to do is police the streets.

Wouldn't be to surprised to see a repeat of the university shooting in the 70s where the national guard shot 3 people dead. Ohio iirc????

I don't see a Tianamen Square type massacre. They might use troops on rioting but that's not really peaceful protest.

But that's my entire point. There are peaceful protesters, they get shot by the cops, the protests become radical, and suddenly the government needs to either back down or double down. At this point it's easy to claim they will restore law and order, but I believe the evidence bears out that this is an unsubstantiated and illusory premise. The tendency is for "law and order," as practiced and as widely supported by the government establishment, to enflame these tensions. You can suppose that the protesters are merely isolated crazies, the people won't support them, the government will restore order, etc., but that supposes all in the first place that the basis for peace is sturdy. It's not. It's crumbling. The rubber band is being pulled back further and further each time. Even if the George Floyd protests peter out, the next time's going to hit even harder.

 

[Zardnaar]

But that's my entire point. There are peaceful protesters, they get shot by the cops, the protests become radical, and suddenly the government needs to either back down or double down. At this point it's easy to claim they will restore law and order, but I believe the evidence bears out that this is an unsubstantiated and illusory premise. The tendency is for "law and order," as practiced and as widely supported by the government establishment, to enflame these tensions. You can suppose that the protesters are merely isolated crazies, the people won't support them, the government will restore order, etc., but that supposes all in the first place that the basis for peace is sturdy. It's not. It's crumbling. The rubber band is being pulled back further and further each time. Even if the George Floyd protests peter out, the next time's going to hit even harder.

I don't think the protesters are crazy.

The ones who start wrecking stuff unrelated to what they're protesting about.

For example we had a cop shot here two days ago. Hardcore people "cop deserved it he's a pig" but even a large amount of liberals here were not ok with it.

Cop was unarmed btw.

Not to many people are denying the cops in America are a problem.

They can't really justify sending in the troops to clear Chaz. If they were burning, looting, shooting etc they would once it got to a certain point.

 

[Crezth]

Well the police already treat protesters and rioters the same way. That’s kind of how we got here.

 

[caketastydelish]

Police are not following their own protocols, such as not wearing their identification/badges even though they are obviously supposed to. Then complain if the peaceful protestors, at least trying to be law-abiding citizens make the slightest mistake. Or "punishing" them even when they've done absolutely nothing wrong. All of this was easier to cover up before internet/social media, but not now.

 

[Joij21]

The harder they crack down, the more the situation will spiral out of their control.

But they don't necessarily have to crack down. Most likely they'll play a rope-a-dope strategy and play both sides like saying "Its very unfortunate that there is widespread looting but we support the anguish of those affected by the recent slayings of people of color." Sometimes they'll just tell the cops to not defend certain areas and let people burn down neighborhoods, and sometimes they'll get the governor to bring in the state troopers in order to do the dirty work so they don't get the blame. Then they'll make promises of reform on live television, and later claim people are going too far in advocating anarchy. Later they'll say its about time confederate symbols and racist food brands be taken away, but complain when their own precious symbols are taken away. Lastly they'll claim brand new bailouts must be had for those affected by COVID, only to later say that no one can open their business because of COVID.

In other words they'll just keep playing this back and forth cat and mouse game until everyone's brain goes numb and forgets what exactly started all of this. Not a single live bullet will be fired. The old reactionary tactics of doubling down with brute force are long outdated. Those in power have gotten smarter and figured out you can just spread misinformation and gaslight everything for the win.

 

[caketastydelish]

That's harder to do with social media/internet. People can post the real news themselves, for anyone to see. The movement wouldn't have had this much success without that in the first place.

 

[Estebonrober]

I think it bears repeating at this point. . .

https://www.capitalgazette.com/opin...0200605-xj5yvyl4ozf3vatk35oly336km-story.html

Spoiler Text :

If we’re going to speak of rioting protesters, then we need to speak of rioting police as well. No, they aren’t destroying property. But it is clear from news coverage, as well as countless videos taken by protesters and bystanders, that many police are using often indiscriminate violence against people — against anyone, including the peaceful majority of demonstrators, who happens to be in the streets.

Rioting police have driven vehicles into crowds, reproducing the assault that killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. They have surrounded a car, smashed the windows, tazed the occupants and dragged them out onto the ground. Clad in paramilitary gear, they have attacked elderly bystanders, pepper-sprayed cooperative protesters and shot “nonlethal” rounds directly at reporters, causing serious injuries. In Austin, Texas, a 20-year-old man is in critical condition after being shot in the head with a “less-lethal” round. Across the country, rioting police are using tear gas in quantities that threaten the health and safety of demonstrators, especially in the midst of a respiratory disease pandemic.

None of this quells disorder. Everything, from the militaristic posture to the attacks themselves, does more to inflame and agitate protesters than it does to calm the situation and bring order to the streets. In effect, rioting police have done as much to stoke unrest and destabilize the situation as those responsible for damaged buildings and burning cars. But where rioting protesters can be held to account for destruction and violence, rioting police have the imprimatur of the state.

What we’ve seen from rioting police, in other words, is an assertion of power and impunity. In the face of mass anger over police brutality, they’ve effectively said So what? In the face of demands for change and reform — in short, in the face of accountability to the public they’re supposed to serve — they’ve bucked their more conciliatory colleagues with a firm No. In which case, if we want to understand the behavior of the past two weeks, we can’t just treat it as an explosion of wanton violence; we have to treat it as an attack on civil society and democratic accountability, one rooted in a dispute over who has the right to hold the police to account.

African American observers have never had any illusions about who the police are meant to serve. The police, James Baldwin wrote in his 1960 essay on discontent and unrest in Harlem, “represent the face of the white world, and that world’s real intentions are simply for that world’s criminal profit and ease, to keep the black man corralled up in his place.” This wasn’t because each individual officer was a bad person but because he was fundamentally separate from the black community as a matter of history and culture. “None of the police commissioner’s men, even with the best will in the world, have any way of understanding the lives led by the people they swagger about in twos and threes controlling.”

[Most read] Someone spray-painted ‘BLM’ on his Edgewater home. Now he’s hosting a sign-making party for Sunday anti-racism protest. »
Go back to the beginning of the 20th century, during America’s first age of progressive reform, as the historian Khalil Gibran Muhammad does in “The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America,” and you’ll find activists describing how “policemen had abdicated their responsibility to dispense colorblind service and protection, resulting in an object lesson for youth: the indiscriminate mass arrests of blacks being attacked by white mobs.”

The police were ubiquitous in the African American neighborhoods of the urban North, but they weren’t there to protect black residents as much as they were to enforce the racial order, even if it led to actual disorder in the streets. For example, in the aftermath of the Philadelphia “race riot” of 1918, one black leader complained, “In nearly every part of this city peaceable and law-abiding Negroes of the home-owning type have been set upon by irresponsible hoodlums, their property damaged and destroyed, while the police seem powerless to protect.”

If you are trying to understand the function of policing in American society, then even a cursory glance at the history of the institution would point you in the direction of social control. And blackness in particular, historian Nikhil Pal Singh argues, was a state of being that required “permanent supervision and if necessary direct domination.”

The simplest answer to the question “Why don’t the American police forces act as if they are accountable to black Americans?” is that they were never intended to be. And to the extent that the police appear to be rejecting accountability outright, I think it reflects the extent to which the polity demanding it is now inclusive of those groups the police have historically been tasked to control. That polity and its leaders are simply rejected as legitimate wielders of authority over law enforcement, especially when they ask for restraint.

A New York City Police Department that worked enthusiastically with Republican mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg — mayors who found their core support among the white residents of the city — then rejected the authority of Bill de Blasio, a Democrat backed by blacks and Hispanics who had emphasized police reform when he was a candidate. Or compare the contempt for President Barack Obama from representatives of law enforcement to their near-worshipful posture toward President Donald Trump.

[Most read] Former pro lacrosse player Josh Sims rejects Severn School honors as alums revolt over racism statement »
Yes, some of this reflects partisan politics — it’s in the nature of policing that many of its practitioners tend to be more conservative than most — but I think it’s also influenced by a sense that neither Obama nor his appointees, like Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch, had the right to criticize them or hold them to account.

If that is the dynamic at work, then we should not be surprised when the police respond, in the main, to demands for change from the policed with anger and contempt. Nor should we be surprised by their willingness to follow the lead of a figure like Trump, who has incited America’s police forces to be even more violent with protesters (to say nothing of his past praise for police abuse).

Trump explicitly rejects the legitimacy of nonwhites as political actors, having launched his political career on the need for more and greater racial control of Muslims and Hispanic immigrants. Even without his tough-guy posturing, Trump is someone who embodies the political and social order the police have so often been called to defend.

Which is all to say that the nightly clashes between protesters and the police are, to an extent, a microcosm of larger disputes roiling this nation: the pressures and conflicts of a diversifying country; the struggle to escape an exclusive past for a more inclusive future; and our constant battle over who truly counts — who can act as a full and equal member of this society — and who does not.

c.2020 The New York Times Company

We cannot let this slide.

 

[Commodore]

There will always be crazies, and focusing attention on them is a favourite reactionary tactic.

Of course. I wasn't trying to focus attention on them though. The thing about boycotting Blizzard was meant to be taken in a humorous light.

 

[Crezth]

In other words they'll just keep playing this back and forth cat and mouse game until everyone's brain goes numb and forgets what exactly started all of this. Not a single live bullet will be fired. The old reactionary tactics of doubling down with brute force are long outdated. Those in power have gotten smarter and figured out you can just spread misinformation and gaslight everything for the win.

You can and this has been the strategy of government in general. But I don't think their control of the narrative is so iron tight it applies to millions of angry and dispossessed people. They couldn't prevent the police response from dramatically shifting public opinion in favor of the protesters - the biggest positive shift in 6 years - and they won't be able to make reform that satisfies BLM's concrete, reasonable demands.

I expect a cat and mouse game and I expect misdirection and propaganda. What I don't expect is for the millions of dispossessed Americans subject to police violence and terror suddenly forgetting why they're on the streets. Public opinion shifts on a dime; but these protests aren't happening because of public opinion, and if the cat and mouse "game" starts trading in city blocks... you've got an insurgency on your hands.

At that point it's less a game and more the concrete reality for many millions of Americans. Misinformation becomes a trifle, law and order is revealed an illusion, and everyone moreorless agrees a little more that the government is completely useless. Especially on this last point, people are well on their way there.