[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

As far as I can see, him using the KKK as an example was because he's been repeatedly accused of supporting or defending them. By making the point that he would judge them taking similar actions just as harshly, he's simultaneously reinforcing what his actual point is, and defending himself from [what appear to me to be] highly dubious attacks. I don't see where he's equating the two things in any moral sense at all, so it doesn't have to "make sense" it's just an example of a similar act, not a judgement of the driving motivations.

I realise it's a common tactic to wait until someone makes an analogy or comparison to something unambiguously bad, then just immediately take offence at the two things being mentioned in the same sentence and to latch onto that offence, but it's not much of an intellectual argument. I can't see how or why it's racist in this case.

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.

I will just have to disagree I guess.

And to take it back to the context, yes, it's about race.

Not sure what this is a reply to as I didn't say it wasn't about race. I said it's not racist to say "riots are bad".

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.

Isn't "well this is how it's always been" generally regarded as a weak argument for defending something?

 

[Crezth]

As far as I can see, him using the KKK as an example was because he's been repeatedly accused of supporting or defending them. By making the point that he would judge them taking similar actions just as harshly, he's simultaneously reinforcing what his actual point is, and defending himself from [what appear to me to be] highly dubious attacks. I don't see where he's equating the two things in any moral sense at all, so it doesn't have to "make sense" it's just an example of a similar act, not a judgement of the driving motivations.

I realise it's a common tactic to wait until someone makes an analogy or comparison to something unambiguously bad, then just immediately take offence at the two things being mentioned in the same sentence and to latch onto that offence, but it's not much of an intellectual argument. I can't see how or why it's racist in this case.

That's not an excuse. One is literally equating them by comparing them as acts meriting equivalent judgment. To disconnect this from "moral" judgment is dishonest and incorrect. And the entire basis of this hypothetical anti-violence position is refuted by one's own actual position which is support for Trump et al, who called for the military to be deployed against the protesters and for no quarter to be taken.

Refusing to mount any significant opposition to the systematic murder of Black people while simultaneously condemning the protest movement is racist. It would be quite one thing if we'd only heard bad words about rioters, but plenty of ink has been spilled now on the specific point that BLM in general is to be disapproved of, on the sole basis of there being riots alongside.

I see no evidence in this thread for a blanket anti-violence position that isn't dishonest and rightfully accused of being dishonest.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's not an excuse.

It's not meant as an excuse as I don't think there's anything to excuse.

One is literally equating them by comparing them as acts meriting equivalent judgment.

It's perfectly reasonable to draw an equivalence between "protestors" rioting and burning a city and the KKK rioting and burning a city, because they are literally the same act. If your point is about the act itself then this is a completely fair and reasonable comparison to draw. Maybe you don't like it, but that's not an intellectual argument.

And frankly if you (collectively) are getting sick of Berzerker using the KKK in his examples (in which he always seems to be denouncing them), then maybe stop accusing him of supporting them all the time and he might not feel the need to do so. And perhaps it's not fair to level that accusation directly at you, so maybe just recognise that that is happening and factor that in.

To disconnect this from "moral" judgment is dishonest and incorrect.

It is neither of those things.

And the entire basis of this hypothetical anti-violence position is refuted by one's own actual position which is support for Trump et al, who called for the military to be deployed against the protesters and for no quarter to be taken.

I didn't see him say anything like that so I can't comment on that, other than to say anti-violence is not the same thing as anti-looting/rioting/vandalism. Indeed I seem to remember he specifically made the point about "senseless violence" not that long ago. Your description of Trump et al's call above does not seem to be senseless, however else you might feel about it.

Refusing to mount any significant opposition to the systematic murder of Black people while simultaneously condemning the protest movement is racist.

I can't think of any other reply to this other than "no it's not", even if he were condemning "the protest movement", rather than specifically rioters and looters. As I said a few posts ago, using these terms interchangeably is not helpful, or indeed charitable in this instance.

It would be quite one thing if we'd only heard bad words about rioters, but plenty of ink has been spilled now on the specific point that BLM in general is to be disapproved of, on the sole basis of there being riots alongside.

I see no evidence in this thread for a blanket anti-violence position that isn't dishonest and rightfully accused of being dishonest.

Ah okay, well this addresses half of my last point (although the "no it's not" part still stands in my opinion). But again, he hasn't been talking about a blanket "anti-violence" position, he's been talking about senseless violence and just smashing stuff up indiscriminately. I have no idea what his general stance on violence is as a whole, but that's not really relevant.

It's not an unreasonable stance to hold that "Good Thing A" is on the whole something to be opposed because it enables "Bad Thing B". It might not be a correct, or fair, or balanced stance to have, but it's not inherently unreasonable, and certainly not "racist" just because it doesn't fall down on your side of the fence.

 

[Senethro]

It's not meant as an excuse as I don't think there's anything to excuse.



It's perfectly reasonable to draw an equivalence between "protestors" rioting and burning a city and the KKK rioting and burning a city, because they are literally the same act. If your point is about the act itself then this is a completely fair and reasonable comparison to draw. Maybe you don't like it, but that's not an intellectual argument.

And frankly if you (collectively) are getting sick of Berzerker using the KKK in his examples (in which he always seems to be denouncing them), then maybe stop accusing him of supporting them all the time and he might not feel the need to do so. And perhaps it's not fair to level that accusation directly at you, so maybe just recognise that that is happening and factor that in.



It is neither of those things.



I didn't see him say anything like that so I can't comment on that, other than to say anti-violence is not the same thing as anti-looting/rioting/vandalism. Indeed I seem to remember he specifically made the point about "senseless violence" not that long ago. Your description of Trump et al's call above does not seem to be senseless, however else you might feel about it.



I can't think of any other reply to this other than "no it's not", even if he were condemning "the protest movement", rather than specifically rioters and looters. As I said a few posts ago, using these terms interchangeably is not helpful, or indeed charitable in this instance.



Ah okay, well this addresses half of my last point (although the "no it's not" part still stands in my opinion). But again, he hasn't been talking about a blanket "anti-violence" position, he's been talking about senseless violence and just smashing stuff up indiscriminately. I have no idea what his general stance on violence is as a whole, but that's not really relevant.

It's not an unreasonable stance to hold that "Good Thing A" is on the whole something to be opposed because it enables "Bad Thing B". It might not be a correct, or fair, or balanced stance to have, but it's not inherently unreasonable, and certainly not "racist" just because it doesn't fall down on your side of the fence.

Between statements of bad faith and poorly signaled sarcasm, your posts turn into complete gibberish.

Moderator Action: Senethro, that is not an acceptable response in an RD thread. --LM

 

[Crezth]

It's perfectly reasonable to draw an equivalence between "protestors" rioting and burning a city and the KKK rioting and burning a city, because they are literally the same act.

This isn’t even the point he made. The point he made was if blacks riot after being shot by police and killed systematically, that’s the same as the KKK burning a church. Anyone can see these are not the same: intent and context make them different. This is an established fact in our legal system, by the way. It’s why lynching is worse than murder - a fact also recognized by the legal system. And again in this case, this context, KKK violence is an instrumental component of oppression against blacks, whereas rioting is a spontaneous breakdown of public order. KKK violence cannot even be called “indiscriminate;” if this is as you say all Berzerker can be shown to oppose, that in itself demonstrates a bias which his hypothetical example serves only to obscure.

Suffice it to say your nitpicking about these details do not illuminate a coherent argument. In fact church burning and riots are not the same, not even legally. Constantly repeating that point is no avail.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This isn’t even the point he made. The point he made was if blacks riot after being shot by police and killed systematically, that’s the same as the KKK burning a church.

I mean... you'll really have to post a quote where that was the point being made, because that's so far from anything I read as to appear ludicrous to me. The only "burning a church" thing I read was where he said he would consider burning an empty church to be an act of violence, which was used in an argument about whether or not property damage could be considered violence. If I missed something else then I'll stand corrected, but without some link or quote to where this was actually said I will just have to regard this as a false claim.

Anyway, I don't imagine there's much point me arguing at length about what some other poster meant, I'll let him argue his own case, I just felt compelled to say something since I was witnessing what appeared to be one of the most uncharitable dog piles I've ever seen on here.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

I agree the riots had an impact, many politicians undoubtedly wanted to do something fast legislatively to ease tensions. I think more politicians wanted to honor MLK though, a peacemaker died promoting a better world. But I also think the riots increased tensions, if the riots happened in the absence of MLK's assassination I'm not sure the reaction from lawmakers would have been the same. Riots create bad blood, they reveal a willingness of rioters to ignore right and wrong and attack the innocent. That massive contradiction doesn't go unnoticed by people.

The moral justification for state violence comes from the rights of the people. Free speech, religion, press, assembly, protecting these rights justifies state violence against anyone violating them. At Charlottesville it was Antifa attacking protesters that started a brawl, they were violating the rights of people opposed to removing a statue of RE Lee.

On that issue I think they should be removed, but not destroyed. Somebody put em up, somebody will probably take them for museums and collections. Destroying them like this looks, is authoritarian. Renaming forts, cool. Renaming cities and states? That would be fun to watch. Maybe a contest to rename Washington DC, that name is in honor of 2 people on the list for deplatforming. The Egyptians tried to obliterate the record of at least one of their pharaohs, we're shooting for 2+ centuries.

 

[Estebonrober]

I mean... you'll really have to post a quote where that was the point being made, because that's so far from anything I read as to appear ludicrous to me. The only "burning a church" thing I read was where he said he would consider burning an empty church to be an act of violence, which was used in an argument about whether or not property damage could be considered violence. If I missed something else then I'll stand corrected, but without some link or quote to where this was actually said I will just have to regard this as a false claim.

Anyway, I don't imagine there's much point me arguing at length about what some other poster meant, I'll let him argue his own case, I just felt compelled to say something since I was witnessing what appeared to be one of the most uncharitable dog piles I've ever seen on here.

Please, defending the KKK, attacking MLK, implying BLM the organization is intentionally behind looting and vandalizing. It all deserves derision and defending it deserves similar levels of derision.

 

[Seon]

Considering President Lyndon B Johnson considered MLK a hypocritical preacher and a serial cheater, but still rapidly changed his minds during the riots and instructed the congress and senate to swiftly pass the Civil Rights Act of 68, I would say your analysis that he wanted to honor MLK is wrong.

Your second point on what would have happened if the riots happened in the absence of MLK's death is also actually pointless. Riots don't generate from vacuum--they happen as a reaction to perceived injustice perpetrated against them. A riot would not have happened without MLK's death.

The injustice perpetrated against black population have been going on for literally centuries, yet a riot does not explode every day. This indicates that riots generally require a sufficiently shocking trigger mechanism to explode into existence.


While your point about right of people is theoretically true, I can very much easily point out racist statues such as Lee being allowed to stand in the open is in itself also an attack of free speech. By glorifying racists and defenders of slavery, we intimidate the minorities and remind them they are outsiders in our society. This is unjust, and if the statues and artifacts cannot be removed by government by either opposition or apathy, we would simply be allowing for more and more radical iconoclastic elements of the population to take matters into their own hands during periods of civil unrest.


I would be perfectly happy with renaming cities such as Columbus or Washington DC. For Columbus, may I recommend Flavortown?

 

[Berzerker]

No but an alt-right member mowed his car into lots of innocent (anti-racist) people, killing one in Charlottesville.

And he's in prison while 2 cops died when their helicopter went down, so 3 people are dead because Antifa attacked a peaceful protest.

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.

If you protest Floyd's death by looting and burning my store, you've lost the moral high ground afforded peaceful protesters. Why are you comparing criminals to peaceful protesters btw?

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

Who said that?

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

If the KKK was protesting the removal of statues and they started looting and torching businesses, would it be a racist dog whistle to oppose their rioting? Is equal treatment racist? I thought unequal treatment was racist.

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.

The people torching your property wont let the firemen thru. Okay, so you wouldn't call the police if people destroyed your property because they murder the innocent. What if someone is trying to murder you? Just wanna see where your line is if you have one.

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.

Peaceful protest works and works best when attacked by the state. But I think his popularity declined because he opposed the war too soon and riots hurt his image.

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.

I think it passed because MLK was murdered. Ofc if he wasn't murdered the riots wouldn't have erupted. But what if we saw the riots and MLK wasn't murdered? The reaction would have been much different without his death.

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.

Where did I compare a broken window to anyone? I didn't bring up the KKK to defend them, I mentioned them to show arson is a violent property crime. Sommers wanted to talk about my past defense of the Klan's free speech so if its been dozens of pages thats because several people have been debating it that long... and here we are again.

I disagree with MLK's use of Jesus' metaphorical sword to rationalize riots. For a preacher to use what Jesus said about his message splitting families apart to condone riots is...umm...not good, not good. But who knows, maybe Jesus wanted his followers to throw bricks at cops.

The only time Jesus acted violently he made a whip and overturned businesses.

He accused the moneychangers of trespassing, a blasphemous property crime in their case.

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.

Jesus wouldn't be out there throwing bricks at cops and store windows to loot and burn the neighborhood. If anyone got uppity by destroying other people's property I'll be happy to sanction state violence against them. Dont matter if its the KKK or Antifa. Destroying other people's property is immoral, if the crime is politically motivated its terrorism.

 

[Narz]

Yeah that definitely doesn't look like a noose

 

[Berzerker]

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.

Aren't they convenient allies at the very least? BLM protests and rioters take over and donations pour into BLM's coffers because of the riots. Corporate America watched a Target looted and burned and knew they better start giving money to BLM.

I dont know that BLM is telling people to attack businesses, I do know they condone if not encourage it. I can see a symbiotic relationship between the people destroying stores and the people getting money from store owners. Corporate donors are hoping to make it onto a list of BLM's friends.

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

He's done more than I expected, more than what the Democrats and Republicans would have done with Bush, Obama, Clinton or Biden in the WH.

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.

Look at homicide rates over the last century, it tells the story. The rates were highest during alcohol prohibition and the drug war, even reaching double the rates from the 40s to the 70s. I dont think its a coincidence the homicide rates for younger black men exploded after the drug war replaced Jim Crow.

Deprived of their drug war, police will continue to shoot protesters, protect each other for murdering, and invent reasons to detain people.

Depriving the cops of their drug war will deprive cartels and gangs of black market profits. The violence in Mexico shows the corrosive nature of drug wars on society. Radically reducing the number of intrusive, arbitrary laws enforced by cops reduces violent encounters during which cops kill or get killed.

 

[Berzerker]

Refusing to mount any significant opposition to the systematic murder of Black people while simultaneously condemning the protest movement is racist. It would be quite one thing if we'd only heard bad words about rioters, but plenty of ink has been spilled now on the specific point that BLM in general is to be disapproved of, on the sole basis of there being riots alongside.

BLM provides cover for riots, they need to stop that and if they cant, they need to find a peaceful way to protest without providing cover for criminals. MLK became disillusioned when his 2nd to last protest erupted in violence and someone got killed. He had to be pressured into the last protest that saw him get assassinated.

When I mount significant opposition to the systemic murder of black people I'm told to keep quiet because hypocritical Democrats dont like mirrors. They're voting for Joe Biden, one of the main authors of the drug war stretching back decades, so they downplay or ignore his/their complicity. I spent the last 3 decades faithfully voting for people who oppose the drug war, dont lecture me about racism.

 

[Crezth]

BLM provides cover for riots, they need to stop that and if they cant, they need to find a peaceful way to protest without providing cover for criminals. MLK became disillusioned when his 2nd to last protest erupted in violence and someone got killed. He had to be pressured into the last protest that saw him get assassinated.

You gotta love MLK being criticized as the direction this has gone.

 

[Bugfatty300]

You gotta love MLK being criticized as the direction this has gone.

Direction this has been purposefully led to.

I think a lot of well meaning posters here need to add a certain someone to their ignore list and move away from trying to engage racist klan apologia. There are lots of things others might like to discuss in this thread.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Please, defending the KKK, attacking MLK, implying BLM the organization is intentionally behind looting and vandalizing. It all deserves derision and defending it deserves similar levels of derision.

No-one has been defending the KKK as far as I've seen. It's weird that you would quote me asking for evidence of that, and then not provide any evidence and just state it again, as if that's a convincing retort. It shouldn't be hard to find a quote from this thread if it's actually going on.

 

[Takhisis]

so 3 people are dead because Antifa attacked a peaceful protest.

‘fine people on both sides!’

No-one has been defending the KKK as far as I've seen.

Berzerker has, by continually making false equivalences among other things. Just because he keeps saying that he's not doesn't make it true.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Direction this has been purposefully led to.

I think a lot of well meaning posters here need to add a certain someone to their ignore list and move away from trying to engage racist klan apologia. There are lots of things others might like to discuss in this thread.

You may not notice it, but I see some progress happening. It's slow and tortured, but its there. Keep talking. Stay engaged. Keep it up.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Berzerker has, by continually making false equivalences among other things. Just because he keeps saying that he's not doesn't make it true.

Can you quote an example where he's actually been defending the KKK? Him merely mentioning the KKK, or using them in an example of something he condemns, does not count.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No-one has been defending the KKK

...

Can you quote an example where he's actually been defending the KKK?

...

my past defense of the Klan's free speech

So here you have an admission that he defends the Klan and has done so in the past... so that directly refutes your statements. It also provides important context which others have pointed out to you repeatedly and you've ignored.

If the KKK was protesting the removal of statues and they started looting and torching businesses, would it be a racist dog whistle to oppose their rioting? Is equal treatment racist? I thought unequal treatment was racist.

More Klan defending, via the moral equivalence argument.

as far as I've seen.

See above. Clearly, you only see what you want to see. Just drop it, you're wrong. If you want to agree with Berz's arguments go ahead, but trying to deny that he defends the Klan is pointless and obviously incorrect.

Depriving the cops of their drug war will deprive cartels and gangs of black market profits.

What does this have to do with ending racism or police brutality? Your reasoning is so tortured here.