[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Traitorfish]

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.

What gives you the impression that people in the street care which corporations are and are not "BLM's friends"? What gives you the impression that they regard the Black Lives Matter organisation as an authority, that they defer to it in any way? What gives you the impression that corporate donors perceive the people on the streets to be deferential to the Black Lives Matter organisation?

There are a great many baked-in assumptions to the scenario you are describing, and you have not offered to substantiate any of them.

 

[Kyriakos]

What gives you the impression that people in the street care which corporations are and are not "BLM's friends"? What gives you the impression that they regard the Black Lives Matter organisation as an authority, that they defer to it in any way? What gives you the impression that corporate donors perceive the people on the streets to be deferential to the Black Lives Matter organisation?

There are a great many baked-in assumptions to the scenario you are describing, and you have not offered to substantiate any of them.

Clearly it is a multi-leveled issue (like everything else...), but it isn't that unlikely that big companies would rather have their name as a supporter of a movement which (for one reason or other) can involve people attacking company stores.
Other than that, I think their support is roughly as honest and deep-seated as Apple's ban of the CSA flag in a computer game, some years ago. I really doubt company leaders really care.

Also, for better or worse, in a few years BLM (probably also Antifa) will be two more movements of the past, and will be presented in some movies, with other movements having replaced them, likely to the same end. Most people don't recall the names of past movements either. In this respect, time travel to the future is possible, if you just view BLM as dead.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am extremely skeptical that targeted ('revenge') violence would create a superior outcome compared to random ('cathartic') violence.

You need huge societal buy-in to endorse targeted violence. Much, much less to forgive cathartic violence.

 

[cardgame]

The issue with targeted violence is that you'd get hit for terrorism...

 

[Hrothbern]

The issue with targeted violence is that you'd get hit for terrorism...

yes if they catch you

but if that possibility is practically excluded... which is quite often the case... you still cause much societal or in-group divides up to lasting schisms... unless there is an overwhelming majority supportive.

The hurdle is what El-Machinae describes.

And in my wording similar to whether Mens Rea applies or not, whether there is intent or not.

The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".

 

[Berzerker]

No. The way this particular conversation started between the two of us was when you brought up the Klan in post #2564 and I responded.

Where in that post did I defend the KKK's freedom of speech? Bugfatty said property crimes are not violent and I asked if it was a violent property crime if the KKK burned down an empty black church. You called that a defense of the KKK for some reason and then you brought up the debate about Charlottesville where I defended the right of people to protest the removal of RE Lee's statue. You changed the subject to the KKK and Charlottesville and then complained about that subject being off topic.

In all these years and debates my only 'defense' of the KKK was their right to speak. If that makes me their ally will they disown me for wanting their symbols of 'southern pride' removed? How do you feel about the Obama administration letting the Klan protest? Was he their ally too?

Whenever I am in a discussion with people and they start complaining about my profession and accusing me of using my profession against them, I always know that is the point where they have realized that my argument is correct, they can't refute it and they are bitter/frustrated about it. It's essentially the equivalent of getting dunked on and complaining... "Hey no fair! You're a pro!"

I was pointing out how you're paid to argue in bad faith, it wasn't acknowledgement of your awesomeness. On the contrary, your straw men are easy to dismantle. MB's been doing plenty of that already.

In any case, while I don't expect the victims of collateral damage to be happy or accepting about it, I also don't accept the premise that any collateral damage in a righteous cause makes the cause no better than any other cause that has caused harm. But I guess I should back up and ask a more fundamental question and give you an opportunity to answer. Do you actually even consider the underlying issue of these protests ending police brutality/abuse, defunding the police, BLM, etc., to be a righteous cause?

Of course, I've been voting for people to end the drug war most of my adult life. What I object to are riots. People see the innocent being attacked (your 'collateral damage') and respond like people did when they saw images of dogs and fire hoses used on peaceful civil rights protesters.

No, I'm saying if you want to get rid of white supremacists you'll have to kill them.

There are some people here who want that

 

[red_elk]

UK education system hardly mentioned race at all.
We read "To Kill a Mockingbird" and discussed the US race problem a little but never considered our own even though, for example, the Brixton Riots occurred when I was at school.

I never read "To Kill a Mockingbird" before. Bought a paperbook last year to read on vacation.
We had "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in the list of recommended to read books. And a whole bunch of Russian writers books which criticized inequality and injustice in our society, mostly from XIX century.

 

[Crezth]

Police breaking up peaceful violin vigils in honor of their murder victims.

No wonder the people hate them.

 

[Berzerker]

What gives you the impression that people in the street care which corporations are and are not "BLM's friends"? What gives you the impression that they regard the Black Lives Matter organisation as an authority, that they defer to it in any way? What gives you the impression that corporate donors perceive the people on the streets to be deferential to the Black Lives Matter organisation?

There are a great many baked-in assumptions to the scenario you are describing, and you have not offered to substantiate any of them.

I get that impression for a number of reasons. First, massive corporate donations poured into BLM after the riots. If a company gives BLM $50m and their stores are destroyed the company wont be happy and BLM will be cut off. Why pay protection money to the mob if the mob destroys your business anyway?

Now bribing BLM may not prevent arson or looting because somewhere in the crowd we'll find violent zealots and criminals exploiting the situation but everybody will know that company is now a 'benefactor' of BLM and BLM might get mad at people who destroy their benefactor's property. And all those other businesses will see that bribing BLM doesn't protect them.

If 'I' was BLM and a business dumped a treasure at my feet and I found out someone destroyed their property endangering future treasure I'd let them know I was mad. I suppose analysis of the chronology of the riots and their aftermath might show if bribing BLM had the desired effect.

Would you agree there is overlap between BLM supporters and people who riot? People can do both. I'm sure Michael Brown's father supports BLM and he wanted to burn it all down. Now of course he was distraught and angry but I'll bet if we ask BLM's supporters if they're okay with looting and arson when its their cause they're mostly gonna be okay with it. So BLM has plenty of supporters involved with the destruction of property and some control over them.

A long time I wondered why supposedly right wing constitutionalists who insist on their reading (and mine) of the 2nd Amendment would support a drug war. Why does the NRA support drug warriors? The drug war's unconstitutional on several levels, yet they endorsed that war. They did it because they're funded by corporations who want people buying guns. What better way to arm a population than a drug war? A civil war. Thats the politics of the marketplace, like why WR Hearst wanted a war on pot and a war with Spain. He made money off them, no lives matter, just the corporation.

 

[Lexicus]

I get that impression for a number of reasons. First, massive corporate donations poured into BLM after the riots. If a company gives BLM $50m and their stores are destroyed the company wont be happy and BLM will be cut off. Why pay protection money to the mob if the mob destroys your business anyway?

Now bribing BLM may not prevent arson or looting because somewhere in the crowd we'll find violent zealots and criminals exploiting the situation but everybody will know that company is now a 'benefactor' of BLM and BLM might get mad at people who destroy their benefactor's property. And all those other businesses will see that bribing BLM doesn't protect them.

Just want to quote this idea that businesses donating to BLM are actually paying into a protection racket so their businesses don't get destroyed in riots because it's such perfect boomer gold

 

[Berzerker]

Why do you think they're giving money to BLM? Why do corporations pay politicians? Favors, protection. They're just playing the game Congress plays. If the party needs money, threaten to regulate an industry and watch the money pour in.

 

[Lexicus]

Why do you think they're giving money to BLM? Why do corporations pay politicians? Favors, protection. They're just playing the game Congress plays. If the party needs money, threaten to regulate an industry and watch the money pour in.

They're giving money to BLM because they think the publicity will make the "woke" people buy their stuff. It's really as simple as that.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't really disagree with the idea that some of the motivation is self-defense. Heck, that's why I've long-said that taxes are legitimate (in our modern era).

They paid taxes in order to be protected from the mob (or to prevent criminality) and then because the government under-charged for the services, it turns out that the mob happened despite the taxes. Except for the fact that we hold people to moral standards, it's basically the same problem as seeing your dentist too rarely and then eventually having to deal with a cavity.

If corporations hadn't tricked the Trickle Downers into thinking that you could maintain a healthy society on-the-cheap, society would be more healthy. Holding the mob 'to blame' is fine, I guess. But it kind of ignores the fact that people are a predictable animal. Sure, have moral standards. But don't be dumb. People are going to people. If you want to protect something, you gotta pay to protect it. Apparently hiring thugs to stand on people's necks looks efficient on paper, but it's not as sustainable as you'd like.

Of course, once you're super-wealthy, then hiring thugs to stand on people's necks might be the game-winning strategy in retrospect. It's why they do it.

 

[Berzerker]

They're giving money to BLM because they think the publicity will make the "woke" people buy their stuff. It's really as simple as that.

Of course its good PR and it buys protection. Do corporations care if their stores are destroyed? If they do and giving BLM money will help protect their stores, why wouldn't they pay BLM for their help?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I guess we're going to hear all about how protesters are getting real time updated lists of who has and hasn't paid "pass over" protection.

 

[Lexicus]

and it buys protection

lol now BLM=mafia apparently

 

[Berzerker]

I guess we're going to hear all about how protesters are getting real time updated lists of who has and hasn't paid "pass over" protection.

Dont the corporations and media provide us with those updates?

lol now BLM=mafia apparently

Corporate donations to BLM doesn't buy protection? If you gave BLM millions dont you think BLM will discourage the destruction of your property? The Mafia will be the ones destroying your business if you dont pay, BLM will watch and applaud as others destroy your business.

 

[El_Machinae]

Lots of protection rackets out there. Do you think Weird Al Yankovitch hides his racism so that his Hollywood Star doesn't get vandalized?

I seriously don't mind it being described as a trying to buy off a mob. They asked for a tax cut, they got a tax cut, and then government failed to deliver. Donations to BLM are being done because the taxes they paid weren't sufficient.

But, we should look at the direction this 'racket' is going. They are trying to pay off a mob. It doesn't mean that BLM was shaking them down. We've known for awhile that the structural inability to properly tax was going to cause mobs. It's not like the warnings weren't there.

 

[r16]

ı have ample experience that talking does no good , while "threats of applied violence" apparently can do a lot . Except those funny words like social contracts do not gain traction if the only thing that will be on offer is breaking heads . People might look like following and the brave of them will stab you in the back and the none brave will spit on your corpse and do the dancing . Democrats and stuff agree that America has seen enough demonstrations ; no revolution in sight and while it will be really good for the world to bye bye Trump , lip service to standarts is what shape kids' and adults' perceptions , so please no sentences and stuff about no debate ...

 

[Berzerker]

Lots of protection rackets out there. Do you think Weird Al Yankovitch hides his racism so that his Hollywood Star doesn't get vandalized?

I seriously don't mind it being described as a trying to buy off a mob. They asked for a tax cut, they got a tax cut, and then government failed to deliver. Donations to BLM are being done because the taxes they paid weren't sufficient.

But, we should look at the direction this 'racket' is going. They are trying to pay off a mob. It doesn't mean that BLM was shaking them down. We've known for awhile that the structural inability to properly tax was going to cause mobs. It's not like the warnings weren't there.

Shake downs need to be subtle or you end up in jail like that lawyer for the stripper who banged Trump. A black conservative preacher from the SoCal area I think tried to get money for neighborhoods hit by the Rodney King riots from corporate donations to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. He said Jesse bristled and told him to bugger off, Jesse was the one shaking the tree.

I'm not saying BLM told the big money to pony up, but they did provide cover to the riots that 'inspired' those donations. Its a conflict of interest at the very least.