[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Joij21]

It's racist to pretend rioting happens for no reason.

Except no-one is saying the riots are happening for no reason. Everyone here agrees that they did in fact happen for a reason, just not everyone believes it was the appropriate response.

 

[Crezth]

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?)

It’s one of the facets of our modern world. What are people to do? You’ve got a lot of downtrodden people, many of them living hand to mouth, living in marginalized communities where their voices don’t amount to much. No matter who they vote for things refuse to improve year after year. Politicians promise a lot and seldom deliver. And when the community rises up to protest indiscriminate violence against them, they’re met with police gas and shot. Rioting in this sense is one of the oldest traditions of mankind; a nihilistic rebellion against a hopeless situation. The police are indiscriminate, the political situation largely hopeless, everyone’s unemployed and bread lines snake out around the block.

And I understand the political dog Berzerker has in the fight. He thinks this is about Democrats versus Republicans. That’s certainly what it is for the Democrats, but the rioting in fact has nothing to do with either of them particularly. It’s a reaction to intolerable circumstances and bad government.

The reason it’s a racist dog whistle to deride the rioters is because it conveniently omits the cause of the riots, which do not admit other responses except as fatalistic surrender to oppressive government. It may be, say, more productive to, instead of riot indiscriminately, organize and rise up in a way so as to make concrete political change. You’ll find no argument from me. And that’s probably the way these are going to go as the police continue to double down on crushing the American public into submission.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Except no-one is saying the riots are happening for no reason. Everyone here agrees that they did in fact happen for a reason, just not everyone believes it was the appropriate response.

Also, even if they were saying that, it would still be best described as "ignorant" rather than "racist".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It’s one of the facets of our modern world. What are people to do? You’ve got a lot of downtrodden people, many of them living hand to mouth, living in marginalized communities where their voices don’t amount to much. No matter who they vote for things refuse to improve year after year. Politicians promise a lot and seldom deliver. And when the community rises up to protest indiscriminate violence against them, they’re met with police gas and shot. Rioting in this sense is one of the oldest traditions of mankind; a nihilistic rebellion against a hopeless situation.The police are indiscriminate, the political situation largely hopeless, everyone’s unemployed and bread lines snake out around the block.

In my opinion you're rather overstating the situation in the last sentence, but that's by the by. But more importantly I just don't agree with the sentiment here. I don't think the answer to "what are people to do?" is ever "lash out violently and randomly", or at least if that is the answer that's given it's not something to be applauded or held up as something rational. Mindless destruction is not a good thing. I'm not advocating for anything of the sort of course, but I could at least understand attacks on police or government buildings, property, or even employees. As wrong as I'm sure I'd still find most of that, it would at least be a rational act. Burning down a newsagent or stealing a TV though... this isn't a rational response to anything at all, ever.

The reason it’s a racist dog whistle to deride the rioters is because it conveniently omits the cause of the riots, which do not admit other responses except as fatalistic surrender to oppressive government. It may be, say, more productive to, instead of riot indiscriminately, organize and rise up in a way so as to make concrete political change. You’ll find no argument from me. And that’s probably the way these are going to go as the police continue to double down on crushing the American public into submission.

I think in the context it's pretty clear that we all know what the causes are, even if we don't see it all the same way. It's not really necessary to reference them the whole time. It's not as if he's actively denying them or actually claiming these riots just spontaneously materialised out of the ether. I don't see how it's racist to just say "riots are bad", and I'm not a fan of this whole dog whistle concept anyway.

 

[Joij21]

The reason it’s a racist dog whistle to deride the rioters is because it conveniently omits the cause of the riots

Deriding the riots does not omit the cause. The cause is well known. However with rioting they will achieve nothing. Its not even well organized rioting at that. And so far we have seen it largely ignored by authorities. After they burn down their neighborhoods, property values will go down, some rich guy will buy up the land, kick everyone out on the streets, then big tech companies will move in and gentrify the surrounding area.

 

[Crezth]

In my opinion you're rather overstating the situation in the last sentence, but that's by the by. But more importantly I just don't agree with the sentiment here. I don't think the answer to "what are people to do?" is ever "lash out violently and randomly", or at least if that is the answer that's given it's not something to be applauded or held up as something rational. Mindless destruction is not a good thing. I'm not advocating for anything of the sort of course, but I could at least understand attacks on police or government buildings, property, or even employees. As wrong as I'm sure I'd still find most of that, it would at least be a rational act. Burning down a newsagent or stealing a TV though... this isn't a rational response to anything at all, ever.

I think in the context it's pretty clear that we all know what the causes are, even if we don't see it all the same way. It's not really necessary to reference them the whole time. It's not as if he's actively denying them or actually claiming these riots just spontaneously materialised out of the ether. I don't see how it's racist to just say "riots are bad", and I'm not a fan of this whole dog whistle concept anyway.

The ultimate cause is the systematic murder of Black people. Comparing that to KKK killings, which are also a major component of said systematic murder, is conflating the cause of the riots with the riots themselves. That makes no sense and is a racist equation of black anger with white supremacy.

To be frank, I don't see why rioting isn't a proportional response. Riots are a defining feature of virtually every revolution and liberation movement in history, including American independence. They may not be "good" but they work at intimidating governments and government supporters. The fact is that it's the government's mismanagement on the one hand and outright cruelty on the other that creates the conditions for riots to flourish. You say they shouldn't lash out violently and randomly, and I agree it would be better if they adopted more concrete measures - as all successful revolutions eventually do - but nobody wakes up in the morning thinking "I'm going to start a riot" just like nobody wakes up in the morning thinking "I'm going to have a nervous breakdown today." It's a symptom of societal stress.

And to take it back to the context, yes, it's about race. This issue has been bubbling for decades, and there's no sign of any solutions in sight. That's why I propose it'll only get worse, and the government - far from keeping a lid on it and preserving so-called "law & order" - is disposed only to inflame it perpetually.

Deriding the riots does not omit the cause. The cause is well known. However with rioting they will achieve nothing. Its not even well organized rioting at that. And so far we have seen it largely ignored by authorities. After they burn down their neighborhoods, property values will go down, some rich guy will buy up the land, kick everyone out on the streets, then big tech companies will move in and gentrify the surrounding area.

Riots aren't necessary for any of that, but this is a good illustration of why the police are in reality no help at all.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You know you are being ridiculous and unfair here.

No, I'm not.

I would have thought you would be better than this.

You're in no position to shame me. There are people on these threads whom I would regret "dissapointing". You're not one of them. You haven't earned that with me. ​

 

[Senethro]

"We have to discuss the entirely hypothetical issue of whether you deserve the same rights as me with the appropriate civility and decorum"

 

[Traitorfish]

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?

Why do you imagine that rioters would be motivated one way or the other by the number of donations made to the Black Lives Matter organisation? You're still imagining a level of coordination between an NGO and a semi-random collection of people in the street for which no evidence has been presented.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

It's called the Promised Land, but now we're getting off track. It was (in the myth) conquered as living space. The entire world was heathen, the godlessness was the excuse.

Genocides are part of history. Jesus's problem is that he encapsulates this genocide myth into the faith he was building on

 

[Bugfatty300]

However with rioting they will achieve nothing. Its not even well organized rioting at that. And so far we have seen it largely ignored by authorities.

Without riots there wouldn't be any national discussion on police reform let alone legislation. George Floyd would be last month's news. Authorities aren't ignoring the riots (Bunker Boy certainly isn't). Local authorities at least are holding off because unlike in 1992 there is virtually no support for crushing the riots. People recognize that the riots are merely symptom and not the disease.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm going to frame this post and put it on my wall with the simple caption "Libertarianism."

Or you could look into a mirror and answer the question

I don't think there's any evidence for this. People did not support civil rights, and MLK was hated when he died. The subsequent week of violent rioting seems like a much more effective argument for the passage of the Civil Rights Act than "popular support," which did not exist.

Your article says he was more popular during the civil rights movement a few years earlier. What happened? Well, he started taking more unpopular positions. For one, he used Jesus to rationalize riots.

From the Harris poll:

In the last year of King’s life, he had fallen off from the ranks of the most-admired Americans. He was disinvited to the White House, forsaken by friends who had fortified him, abandoned by supporters who had sustained his work and witness, and dismissed by a media that had championed his cause.

He was among the most admired Americans... Then even 60% of blacks viewed him as irrelevant.

From your link:

Not content with the gains registered in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he resolved to pursue a more expansive, aggressive, and (to white Americans, especially) unsettling socioeconomic and political agenda, one that would draw him into another fateful labor dispute some three and a half years later in Memphis.

The consequences were swift and severe: an outraged President Lyndon Johnson cut off all contact with King. And a great number of black Americans—including many old allies and colleagues from the civil rights years—warned that his stance could have devastating consequences for their cause.

That was over Vietnam... But your premise is illogical, you're citing his lack of popularity to argue his life and death was not why the '68 civil rights bill was passed as if the riots were more popular than him. How popular was MLK after he was murdered?

King hardly fared better in pursuing his domestic agenda. It was one thing to capture public sympathy nationwide when pitted against the raw hatred and brutality that seemed the peculiar province of whites below the Mason-Dixon Line. It proved quite another to persuade whites outside the South to share their neighborhoods and jobs with blacks, or to support expensive federal assistance programs dedicated to helping blacks overcome the historic disadvantages imposed on them by whites of earlier generations.

Reparations wasn't too popular either

It was impatience with King's doctrine of nonviolence that turned what would prove to be his last march, on behalf of striking sanitation workers in Memphis on March 28, 1968, into a riot. Some marchers quickly broke ranks to break store windows, and looting was soon underway. An aggressive police response, complete with tear gas and billy clubs, led some protesters to retaliate with Molotov cocktails. By the end of the confrontation, one person was dead and some 50 others wounded. Feeling repudiated and ashamed by this failure to prevent violence, King had to be pressured into returning to Memphis a week later for yet another march, one that a single assassin’s bullet on April 4 assured he would never lead.

His protests had been co-opted by rioters. So do you think his more aggressive approach and stances on other issues along with the violence now accompanying the movement is why his popularity declined?

 

[Crezth]

Or you could look into a mirror and answer the question

I don't want the state's armed agents to murder innocent people indiscriminately and call it my protection, no. I'd just call the fire brigade.

Your article says he was more popular during the civil rights movement a few years earlier. What happened? Well, he started taking more unpopular positions. For one, he used Jesus to rationalize riots.

That was over Vietnam... But your premise is illogical, you're citing his lack of popularity to argue his life and death was not why the '68 civil rights bill was passed as if the riots were more popular than him. How popular was MLK after he was murdered?

His protests had been co-opted by rioters. So do you think his more aggressive approach and stances on other issues along with the violence now accompanying the movement is why his popularity declined?

His popularity declined from a hard-won high involving getting beaten by the cops on camera and showing the nation how unreasonable police were, and declined after he correctly insisted that what was being done wasn't enough, even though he was being "respectable." When people saw the police sic dogs on children, his strategy paid off. He wore suits, advocated nonviolence, pushed against a policing problem that hadn't actually improved at all, and continued to stand for the freedom of underserved and brutalized communities. He got an assassin's bullet for his trouble. The passage of the 68 civil rights bill had nothing whatsoever to do with what was popular and everything to do with bribing the riots into ceasing. There is no basis whatsoever for you to claim it passed as a popular alum to King's movement because, as demonstrated, he and the civil rights movement in general were not popular at that time. Delving into the reasons of that declined popularity is irrelevant except that it shows the white population was, indeed, unsympathetic to black liberation.

It's just common sense. If the state is going to treat black populations like an occupied enemy and meet black activists with assassins, it only seems natural that will breed resentment and ultimately violence. The British learned that lesson too when they sent soldiers to quell the colonial riots.

 

[El_Machinae]

On the other side of things, there HAVE been protests that made things worse, especially after violence was misapplied. You need a combination of strength and charisma. I don't have any answers.

What's interesting is that B's laser focus on the drug war really makes him a natural ally. Maybe not specifically with regards to racism, but certainly against tools that have been overwhelmingly used to be racist.

The miscommunication is about trying to thread the conundrum of whether you're endorsing, forgiving, or bemoaning the vandalism of "innocent" actors. And whether doing one makes it look like you're doing the other.

 

[Estebonrober]

In my opinion you're rather overstating the situation in the last sentence, but that's by the by. But more importantly I just don't agree with the sentiment here. I don't think the answer to "what are people to do?" is ever "lash out violently and randomly", or at least if that is the answer that's given it's not something to be applauded or held up as something rational. Mindless destruction is not a good thing. I'm not advocating for anything of the sort of course, but I could at least understand attacks on police or government buildings, property, or even employees. As wrong as I'm sure I'd still find most of that, it would at least be a rational act. Burning down a newsagent or stealing a TV though... this isn't a rational response to anything at all, ever.



I think in the context it's pretty clear that we all know what the causes are, even if we don't see it all the same way. It's not really necessary to reference them the whole time. It's not as if he's actively denying them or actually claiming these riots just spontaneously materialised out of the ether. I don't see how it's racist to just say "riots are bad", and I'm not a fan of this whole dog whistle concept anyway.

Deriding the riots does not omit the cause. The cause is well known. However with rioting they will achieve nothing. Its not even well organized rioting at that. And so far we have seen it largely ignored by authorities. After they burn down their neighborhoods, property values will go down, some rich guy will buy up the land, kick everyone out on the streets, then big tech companies will move in and gentrify the surrounding area.

I know I got beat to the punch a bit here but the entire history of human civilization is covered with riots that started change. Whether total revolutions or just capitulation on certain policies. From China to England to America.

I’m not a fan and would not participate myself but ignoring history for the sake of civility when police racism and brutality has for decades been let to fester is the epitome of “white privilege”.

Especially when most of “white” history is
wallpapered with cities being burnt down over political outrage.

 

[Crezth]

What's interesting is that B's laser focus on the drug war really makes him a natural ally. Maybe not specifically with regards to racism, but certainly against tools that have been overwhelmingly used to be racist.

It's a shame his man Big T has no interest in ending the drug war.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think they partially tried to, but ran into roadblocks because of President Sharpie's strongman tendencies. Just like how President Bush can run deficits and President Obama can drone strike, I think a Republican president is essential to massively rolling back the drug war.

But, a certain level of competence is required.

 

[Crezth]

Along that line of thought I'm extremely pessimistic any kind of reform to BLM's concerns is forthcoming. Even ending the drug war - especially if it's done by a Republican president, though in my mind just as likely to be done in this way by a Democrat president - is no guarantee the actual problems with policing black communities will go away. Berzerker's narrative is that the police used the drug war to crack down on black neighborhoods, and they did, but the drug war also came after decades of famously excessive police behavior. Indeed the entire civil rights movement was propelled to national attention because of police brutality against black folks.

So, it strikes me as focusing on one element of the bigger picture that one can claim is more crucial than it really is, so that when addressed it's suitable to pretend the issue is solved. I think the drug war is merely one tool, like militarization, and the core problem is in the police system in general. Deprived of their drug war, police will continue to shoot protesters, protect each other for murdering, and invent reasons to detain people.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a weird conundrum, I think in terms of specialization. I had a real fixation against Parkinson's disease when I was in research. Other people focussed on Huntington's disease. In the end, our collective goal was to reduce human suffering.

We could have argued with each other about which goal was more worthy, the truth is that they both were. What was important was that we each were individually moving the ball forward, and not get in each other's way

 

[Crezth]

At least it's why I'm unconvinced by the "it's all about the drug war" line.