Jump to content

who are the rioters?


bud

Recommended Posts

here is a list of looters and rioters who appeared in court. most of their names and images appear in the gallery. notice that majority are not black youths or asians. most are white

where is the anti-immigration crowd?

Odd how the BBC had an interview with a prominent member of the Black community this morning who made no effort to deny that his community was disproportionately involved. And I've certainly seen numerous people with darker skins on the many videos of the rioting. These riots took place in areas which were heavily ethnic. It would be a matter of course that a lot of them would be ethnics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's evident you don't.

Everyone cares but perhaps a bit to much - How do you deal with young black kids who hit the bong - then hit the streets - then hit the plate glass window to get a flat screen to take home to play video on while they hit the bong again? My generation at least attempted to go through a personal process of spiritual awakening - social awareness - save the world and all that - these kids don't even know what that stuff is -

It's not about privledge it is about the lack of formal and informal self education - they are not interested in improving themselves because - they are not inquisitive - dope - booze - sex and technology - at least we had rock and roll - Most do not even know what a melody is seeing they grew up on techno...what are yah gonna do with them? To late to educate them..You have what you have. By the time they wake up they will all be 45 years old - and life will be heading for the last lap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no idea what sources I consult.

Except when you post links to them.

The first lesson politicians and authorities have already learned is that they failed in their duty to maintain law and order, and their actions/inactions placed the population in danger. UK citizens will be sure to remind them of this. Obviously, they will approach similar occurrences in a different manner in the future.

LOFL! "failed in their duty to maintain law and order." What about all the unreported crime? We need more police states.

That's the problem. The cops did nothing in the beginning of these riots and there are reports they actually stood by while fires were set and businesses looted.

Yes, they did nothing. :blink:

That's a generalization which I disagree with. Reports regarding who was rioting and looting clearly detail people from poor and middle class communities joined in the carnage and lawlessness; when it was initially realized the cops were tolerant of criminal acts they tested the limits and took their lawlessness to a higher level, and others joined in until it became unmanageable. Fed up people indeed.

Well, if they weren't fed up, what were they?

Consult your sources and let me know. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fed up? Fed up with what? I think the old guy in the video above was correct. Let these scum go and complain to the starving people in Somalia about their lack of opportunities. I'm sure they'll get plenty of sympathy!

The undeniable fact is that not all people are created equal. Some are smarter and dumber than average. Some are kinder or meaner than others. Some think of others, and some care about no one but themselves. In a well-ordered society, the poorer members are cared for to a degree, but also held in line by imposed discipline. Unfortunately, those human refuse in Britain have learned that no one will hold them to account for their laziness and criminality. The police are not permitted to do much, and the courts are extremely lenient.

Frankly, no one who is healthy should be given welfare under any circumstances, and those people who took part in the riots ought to spend the next few years on a chain gang planting potatoes and cutting weeds.

I think they are likely fed up with people that live in a sacred bubble and believe, by the sheer power of their righteousness, that the ideological bullshit that they feed on is the gospel and moral canon.

What you ought to do is go into those neighbourhoods and preach your righteous gospel. I believe you would find, close up and personal, what people get fed up with.

But I bet you are too scared to do anything like that and prefer the nice, safe bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is a small piece of a multi-dimensional story:

Very interesting to hear the views right from the street. The guy at the end of the video did make the point, "They're letting them come in here and take our jobs. We've got no jobs."

But I think the discontentment covers a wider spectrum than just that.

Among other things there is resentment against authority, pent up frustration from long-term abuse. And yes, these rioters are not sidewalk philosophers, most of them probably couldn't verbalize why they want to smash things up. Some of them are even doing alright by many standards, have a job and a home. Like the teacher mentioned earlier. Maybe a lot of them are opportunists. Then the question must be, why do we breed so many who have no ethical dilemma in joining in the wanton destruction of their society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two additional comments:

- Entitlement exists at all levels. Yes even the wealthy believe they are entitled to live better than most of us, and help themselves to money that's not really theirs. We saw that when governments handed out public money to shore up corporations that were faltering, and soon after we heard about big bonuses being handed out to the executives. Sure, it's not the same as smashing a window and grabbing a TV, but tell me how that is not a sense of entitlement? White collar crime has its ways.

- Police standing down and allowing the situation to escalate, like doing nothing while watching people set fires only leads to greater violence and consequent public outrage. Then the response will be much harsher. Security measures need to be increased. People will condone the loss of their own freedom, out of fear for violence. The only way to preserve our liberty is to use appropriate measures in time, to maintain civility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two additional comments:

- Entitlement exists at all levels. Yes even the wealthy believe they are entitled to live better than most of us, and help themselves to money that's not really theirs.

Incorrect. They earn their money, it is neither given to them from the state or stolen.

Now of course, the communists believe the rich steal their wealth, but their opinions are like Joey from Friends says, Is a Moo point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. They earn their money, it is neither given to them from the state or stolen.

It's a Mao point.

I reject the black/white depiction of this issue. The government tends to act to ensure a social status quo in the economy as much as it can. For Britain, this means that the class system is regarded as being somewhat natural so the structures in place perpetuate that.

The wealthy are protected from entrepreneurial upstarts, naturally, by barriers to entry and the old boys' club. The poor are handed money because, well, no one can reasonably expect them to better themselves right ?

To say the rich or poor steal, or even to call them entitlements is too moralistic a judgement on what is effectively an economic eco-system that has continued for awhile now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the question must be, why do we breed so many who have no ethical dilemma in joining in the wanton destruction of their society?

It's an unfair question, since there was no "wanton destruction of their society" in any way, shape or form, not even a blip on their own sub-culture.

And you are assuming there was "no ethical dilemma" of the "many" based soley on the final actions of a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wealthy are protected from entrepreneurial upstarts, naturally, by barriers to entry and the old boys' club. The poor are handed money because, well, no one can reasonably expect them to better themselves right ?

That wasn't even true 100 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a Mao point.

I reject the black/white depiction of this issue. The government tends to act to ensure a social status quo in the economy as much as it can. For Britain, this means that the class system is regarded as being somewhat natural so the structures in place perpetuate that.

The wealthy are protected from entrepreneurial upstarts, naturally, by barriers to entry and the old boys' club. The poor are handed money because, well, no one can reasonably expect them to better themselves right ?

Not all the wealthy are thieves, probably not even most of them. The bad guys make it into the news, and what matters is perception.

To say the rich or poor steal, or even to call them entitlements is too moralistic a judgement on what is effectively an economic eco-system that has continued for awhile now.

Just because something has persisted for a while now does not make it above moral criticism. Humans have been greedy and evil since day one, and all empires eventually decay into corruption. That internal decay is what eventually brings empires down. Resistance and reform is what makes it live.

If you are willing to accept it by making excuses, that's up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because something has persisted for a while now does not make it above moral criticism. Humans have been greedy and evil since day one, and all empires eventually decay into corruption. That internal decay is what eventually brings empires down. Resistance and reform is what makes it live.

If you are willing to accept it by making excuses, that's up to you.

Your value system seems to have as a basis that humans are greedy and evil. I disagree, but how could someone debate such a thing ?

What we're talking about are systems, though, and at a certain point morality doesn't help objective analysis. Stealing and violence are morally wrong, so should we dismiss the French Revolution, the American Revolution ? Taxation is theft, we have seen posters argue. But taxation clearly works, as all prosperous countries use it.

I would rather talk about the system as objectively as we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that it was but this is a tough thing to quantify, so I won't argue this one.

Do you have anything to offer me in terms of background on this topic ? I would gladly read it.

Are you aware say, of maragaret thatcher's parents?

Or perhaps, the development of the canal system in england in the 19th century?

Or....the lever bros?

...or the rise of the middle-class in England in general

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your value system seems to have as a basis that humans are greedy and evil.

Some. Many, to varying degrees. But surely not all.

What we're talking about are systems, though, and at a certain point morality doesn't help objective analysis. Stealing and violence are morally wrong, so should we dismiss the French Revolution, the American Revolution ? Taxation is theft, we have seen posters argue. But taxation clearly works, as all prosperous countries use it.

I would rather talk about the system as objectively as we can.

If objectively means only saying nice, supportive positive things, that's useless. Criticism is necessary for steering and correction. There is no stable condition whereafter everything continues to work well, forever. Decay always creeps in. For more information, see the second law of thermodynamics.

The Roman empire fell, not just because there were too many barbarians at the gate, but due to internal corruption and failed economics. Same thing with the USSR. An over-extended military was the final straw.

Polarization and non-cooperation are perhaps the most insidious part of the problem. I say the root of our problem begins in our brains, in moral decay and selfishness. There needs to be a cultural revolution in the west.

But alas, we have closed too many doors on our own past. We've gone far down that liberal road, that through equality destroys culture, removes morality and critical judgement and leaves us only with nihilistic existentialism. For most of us there is no reason to help our brothers and sisters. Only a catastrophe will change our minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you aware say, of maragaret thatcher's parents?

Or perhaps, the development of the canal system in england in the 19th century?

Or....the lever bros?

...or the rise of the middle-class in England in general

Bill Clinton and Obama rose up from poverty to be president, so did George W. Bush. What does it mean ?

I have no doubt that some change has happened but such things aren't illustrated by individual stories but by larger indicators, and metrics. My own experience living in socialist Europe in the 1980s was that the socialist/class system kept people in their place by making it more comfortable for them to stay there and harder to move forward.

Let's see if Wiki can help me...

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility… Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.[5]

Well, that's surprising. Two countries with different approaches achieve the same result.

wiki

Here's a report on economic mobility:

report

Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark seem to have the most mobile environments. Socialist France, welfare state UK and libertarian US are at the bottom of the list.

What does it mean ? The mushy middle wins again ? Cultural factors ?

What do you think ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But alas, we have closed too many doors on our own past. We've gone far down that liberal road, that through equality destroys culture, removes morality and critical judgement and leaves us only with nihilistic existentialism. For most of us there is no reason to help our brothers and sisters. Only a catastrophe will change our minds.

Morality and criticism are not the same thing. One doesn't use morality in evaluating the efficiency of an engine, but provides objective analysis and critical thinking about the design.

Moralistic viewpoint would produce a result such as "that system is bad" "wrong" whereby critical objective thinking would produce a result such as "the system tends to punish hard work" "this society spends more money on punishment rather than prevention of crime" and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality and criticism are not the same thing. One doesn't use morality in evaluating the efficiency of an engine, but provides objective analysis and critical thinking about the design.

Moralistic viewpoint would produce a result such as "that system is bad" "wrong" whereby critical objective thinking would produce a result such as "the system tends to punish hard work" "this society spends more money on punishment rather than prevention of crime" and so on.

We are not mechanistic machines but people of flesh and bone. We are impulsive, we make mistakes. We perceive right and wrong. We crave justice. And justice is based on morality.

So morality is relevant to this discussion. When I am living in a state of justice, I am satisfied with my life. I don't feel desire for change. A sense of justice prevents mass rioting, for example. People may not be able to nail down what it is that makes them feel unsettled, but they know when they're getting screwed. And people are great imitators. If we believe we're being screwed by those who hold power over us, it doesn't take long for us to start doing some screwing, ourselves. Vengeful screwing, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not mechanistic machines but people of flesh and bone. We are impulsive, we make mistakes. We perceive right and wrong. We crave justice. And justice is based on morality.

Yes - good point. The ultimate moral result, though, is a system that provides for the pursuit of happiness.

So morality is relevant to this discussion. When I am living in a state of justice, I am satisfied with my life. I don't feel desire for change. A sense of justice prevents mass rioting, for example. People may not be able to nail down what it is that makes them feel unsettled, but they know when they're getting screwed. And people are great imitators. If we believe we're being screwed by those who hold power over us, it doesn't take long for us to start doing some screwing, ourselves. Vengeful screwing, that is.

All of this is fair, but my problem is that there is already too much moralizing on these topics and it makes it difficult for people to make progress in the discussion.

The economic environment today is not the same as it was. Poverty is a relative term; although some of the social issues are the same we're not talking about people starving as in Dickensian England.

On the other side, the labour situation doesn't provide well-paying jobs anymore and our system drives down wages, moves jobs offshore with no accepted concept of how the economic losers may one day recover. Investment money will just sit somewhere instead of being used to employ people onshore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you ought to do is go into those neighbourhoods and preach your righteous gospel. I believe you would find, close up and personal, what people get fed up with.

But I bet you are too scared to do anything like that and prefer the nice, safe bubble.

I like my bubble. But I wasn't born in it. I came from those neighbourhoods. I know people in them. I have relatives in them. I know perfectly well what sort of mentality leads to looting and destroying things, and none of it is ideologically based. Nor does it arise from misery and poverty and hopelessness. It comes from a sense of jaded, pseudo sophistication, mostly, a feeling that the conventional life of work and raising a family is simply too BORING, and a dislike of schedules and responsibilities. It is people who have little connection or empathy to others, who are too selfish and narcissistic and too lacking in drive or ambition to make anything of their lives. Such people feel contempt for 'normal' people and normal lifestyles, and a sense of superiority which is mixed with indignation sometimes bordering on anger that their wants are not being met -- despite no work on their part to obtain the means to meet those wants.

I don't feel sorry for such people. I feel sorry that my taxes go to supporting them when I get nothing back I want to put those people on chain gangs until they decide they'd rather do something else to feed themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...