[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are half correct. Civil rights movement lead by black leaders such as MLK provided the material condition for the Civil Rights Act. The riots after his death that saw more than a hundred cities burn around America provided the urgency of a need for action that saw the law pass despite opposition.

Our legal system generally sees the need for both restorative justice and punishments. While violence against another is evil, we see that it is necessary for the sake of order or compliance with basic standard of behavior. This is the justification for which the state employs violence (cops, jails, fines, executions).

This, however, runs both ways. While we agree that peaceful protest is the ideal method to protest, if peaceful protests is met with either apathy or violence, more and more people will resort to less ideal means of protesting, such as reprisals, burning down cities, or vandalism. The fear of this occurring is the unspoken reason why protests work. The oppressors change not because they suddenly repent their evil ways, which would only be a minority of cases, but because they fear being ripped to shreds in the streets by millions of formerly peaceful protesters who have determined they have exhausted all other options. As Malcolm X put it, ‘obey the law, listen to the police, but if they touch you, put them in the grave.’

Martin Luther King’s death proved this was a real possibility as hundreds of cities burned. The civil rights act of 1968 was the most filibustered bill for years despite constant attempts by more progressive senators to pass it, with both northern and southern politicians devoted to quashing it, and was dead in the water by the time of his assassination.

It passed within the week afterwards.
 
Legit the only thing MLK would have to say to BLM is "you guys should get more white kids and elderly up front for the cameras." A large part of his strategy was provoking the fuzz.
 
high ground is a relative term, B.

It has to be earned, neither the cop who killed Floyd nor the people who looted and burned the neighborhood have the moral high ground - they all suck. The people who do have the moral high ground were Floyd and the victims of the riots.

So no links then? Lovely.

I just explained this to you, if I thought Este had a business my question would have been about that instead of his house. Some of those businesses were more valuable than most houses, so why does it matter if the property being destroyed was Este's business or house? He might place more value on his business.

You seem to think I was accusing the arsonists of targeting homes, nope. Just wanted to know how Este would feel if they torched property he owns, odds are that would be a house and not a business. I did link an article showing 1500+ buildings had been damaged, I dont know or care how many of them were houses.

If people showed up to destroy your home or business, would you cheer them on or ask for somebody to protect your property?

That's the very definition of strawmanning. Now I see why you strawman so much. You don't really understand what it means. So you're still denouncing MLK after defending the Klan?

A straw man replaces an opponents argument with a more easily defeated argument. Like accusing me of defending the Klan while denouncing MLK. Thats a straw man and thats being charitable. I defend the Klan's right to free speech, not what they say. Same thing with MLK and BLM. They have free speech too but I dont have to agree with people rationalizing riots, the color of their skin dont matter. Does it matter to you?

If? If??? LOL more Klan defending huh?

The Klan didn't loot and burn Charlottesville, nobody did. Why is that analogous to people who are looting and burning cities?
 
No but an alt-right member mowed his car into lots of innocent (anti-racist) people, killing one in Charlottesville.
 
It has to be earned, neither the cop who killed Floyd nor the people who looted and burned the neighborhood have the moral high ground - they all suck. The people who do have the moral high ground were Floyd and the victims of the riots.

It's kind of weird to describe dead victims of government violence as having the moral high ground, but not the people protesting that violence.
 
Who compared your broken window to all that?

You have spent dozens of pages defending the KKK, slamming MLK, and comparing broken windows to the lives of black people. It speaks for itself.
 
If your business was burned down would you approve? I dont think Jesus would be on board with senseless violence against the innocent, so getting his approval matters more than my opinion - he's got more followers than you, me or MLK.



Violence against the innocent?



Who compared human lives to minor property damage and where are these racist takes? Are you planning on letting anyone else defend themselves against your accusations?



Tell that to all the people who lost their jobs because civility sucks. I think supporting looters and arsonists is terrible and if I saw my protests gave them cover to commit their crimes I'd find another way to express my opinions.



I thought about asking Este how he'd feel if his business was burned down, but I didn't figure him for a business owner so I cut to the chase and asked how he'd feel if it was his house instead. But if it makes you happy, some people who saw their livelihoods destroyed may lose their houses too.

Why is it a strawman to replace somebody's business with Este's house when asking how he'd feel if his property was destroyed? Is he supposed to condemn burning his house but not his business?



I'm against looting and burning neighborhoods and for free speech, if MLK was an apologist for riots I disagree with him. If the Klan was looting and burning cities I wouldn't call it peaceful protest or free speech. Please continue protecting us from straw men, I acknowledge your ideological inconsistency.



You call that being fair? The ACLU protected the free speech of the Klan and neo-Nazis and I didn't denounce the civil rights movement, I denounced riots.



Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground, he was lying on his back getting beat up. He was acquitted because all the evidence showed it was self defense.



I didn't say they were directing riots, I said they're providing cover for those who do riot. And I said that violence - not at BLM's direction - could have the effect of coercing corporate donations. If rioters see their effort is filling the movement's coffers, why would they stop?
The only time Jesus acted violently he made a whip and overturned businesses.
 
this thread is incredibly depressing. Imagine using Jesus Christ of all people to advance your agenda of "black people better not get uppity", "property is worth more then human lives" and "violence is okay as long as it's state sanctioned". The worst thing is that it isn't even in bad faith, some people just genuinely think like this. no idea how anyone of you has the mental strength to keep this up.
 
this thread is incredibly depressing. Imagine using Jesus Christ of all people to advance your agenda of "black people better not get uppity", "property is worth more then human lives" and "violence is okay as long as it's state sanctioned". The worst thing is that it isn't even in bad faith, some people just genuinely think like this. no idea how anyone of you has the mental strength to keep this up.
I just take frequent breaks. Helps a lot.
 
Comparing my broken windows or even my burnt down house to the death of hundreds of human beings and the ruining of tens of thousands of lives per year by a broken justice system is racist as hell.

I don't think it's racist to hold the belief that the former doesn't fix the latter, and not reasonable to hold that such a belief implies direct support for the latter.
 
The only time Jesus acted violently he made a whip and overturned businesses.

Jesus never preached violence. BUT, he did endorse the worship of a god that commanded the genocide of Canaan for "living space".

Jesus was pretty cool, but him sanctifying the OT god means that we have modern Christians that are pretty easily tempted into believing evil was good
 
I don't think it's racist to hold the belief that the former doesn't fix the latter, and not reasonable to hold that such a belief implies direct support for the latter.

It's racist to pretend rioting happens for no reason.
 
Jesus never preached violence. BUT, he did endorse the worship of a god that commanded the genocide of Canaan for "living space".

Jesus was pretty cool, but him sanctifying the OT god means that we have modern Christians that are pretty easily tempted into believing evil was good
A more traditional reading would be that God that commanded the genocide of Canaan for worshiping the wrong thing, not that that is any easier to rationalise with modern morality.
 
If? If??? So... more Klan defending huh?

You know you are being ridiculous and unfair here. I would have thought you would be better than this. He's asking what your (or whomever's) response would be to a specific hypothetical situation*. He's not making the claim that nothing like the hypothetical situation ever actually happened. He's not casting doubt on that. If English wasn't your first language I could possibly understand your confusion here, but other than that you just have to be deliberately misreading it to draw this conclusion.

* Edit - my mistake, he was stating what his own response would be to a specific hypothetical situation.
 
Last edited:
It's not hypothetical. That's the point.
 
It's racist to pretend rioting happens for no reason.

Well, no that's not inherently racist. It's also not what was described as being the thing that is racist. That would be a different thing.
 
A more traditional reading would be that God that commanded the genocide of Canaan for worshiping the wrong thing, not that that is any easier to rationalise with modern morality.

Especially since that was after he gave them the Ten Commandments. If I remember right, isn't there one that says something about not killing? I guess there must have been some fine print that said "unless I command you to"
 
Well, no that's not inherently racist. It's also not what was described as being the thing that is racist. That would be a different thing.

It is contextually racist, because anti-police riots and hate killings are not the same things and don't happen for any of the same reasons. No one really thinks breaking the windows of businesses fixes stuff, just that rioting is something of a foregone conclusion when people go to protest police brutality and get shot at by the police for it. That's called the government spreading disorder.

Again, if English isn't your first language...

Why do racists think this is a gotcha? Just asking hypothetically.
 
It is contextually racist, because anti-police riots and hate killings are not the same things and don't happen for any of the same reasons. No one really thinks breaking the windows of businesses fixes stuff, just that rioting is something of a foregone conclusion when people go to protest police brutality and get shot at by the police for it. That's called the government spreading disorder.

Recognising something as a foregone conclusion isn't the same as actively endorsing it. To me it seems Berzerker is rather against the idea of people supporting looting and vandalism. I don't think you can claim that is a racist opinion regardless of the context. It also doesn't help to use the terms protestors/looters/rioters interchangeably as if they are the same thing.

(Also it's a bit sad that it is a foregone conclusion. Like smashing up property that has nothing to do with the cause in question just has to happen for some reason?)

Why do racists think this is a gotcha? Just asking hypothetically.

This doesn't mean anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom