Ferguson unrest

ironstone · January 25, 2015

The broader point, which you seem to keep missing, is that change seldom comes through non-disruptive means. You'd think someone from a country founded in a violent rebellion would grasp that.

Does that mean that you would like to see more "disruptive" means?What has rioting,looting and murder solved?

jbg · January 26, 2015

The broader point, which you seem to keep missing, is that change seldom comes through non-disruptive means. You'd think someone from a country founded in a violent rebellion would grasp that.

The point that you are missing is that no one is going to be convinced of the rightness of a cause by being stuck in a traffic jam. The Selma march was a planned, publicized march with media in attendance. A tie-up of a major commuter artery is going to enrage rather than convince the target constituency.

Does that mean that you would like to see more "disruptive" means?What has rioting,looting and murder solved?

He has a point that the Boston Tea Party had elements of both riot and looting, though not murder.

Black Dog · January 26, 2015

Does that mean that you would like to see more "disruptive" means? What has rioting,looting and murder solved?

Better question is: what social change hasn't come about as a result of "rioting,looting and murder"?

The point that you are missing is that no one is going to be convinced of the rightness of a cause by being stuck in a traffic jam.

I'd suggest the kind of people willing to dismiss a cause because of a minor personal inconvenience are unlikely to be convinced regardless.

The Selma march was a planned, publicized march with media in attendance. A tie-up of a major commuter artery is going to enrage rather than convince the target constituency.

Tough.

He has a point that the Boston Tea Party had elements of both riot and looting, though not murder.

The subsequent revolution had plenty of that.

Smallc · January 26, 2015

It's nice to see someone supporting breaking the law as if it's the right thing.

cybercoma · January 27, 2015

It's nice to see someone supporting breaking the law as if it's the right thing.

According to the Nuremberg Trials breaking the law was the right thing.

Smallc · January 27, 2015

According to the Nuremberg Trials breaking the law was the right thing.

Hell, why even have laws?

TimG · January 27, 2015

Hell, why even have laws?

Oh he believes in laws - he just believes that anyone who says things he likes should be allowed to break them but anyone who says things he does not like should be punished to the full extent of the law. i.e. I am pretty sure he would take a dim view of anti-abortion protesters who looted a clinic despite the fact that their "motivation" is social change. Edited January 27, 2015 by TimG

kimmy · January 27, 2015

Just go stand in the Free Speech Zone and hold up a sign that says "I am a little upset." Rest assured your message will be heard loud and clear.

-k

Smallc · January 27, 2015

Just go stand in the Free Speech Zone and hold up a sign that says "I am a little upset." Rest assured your message will be heard loud and clear.

-k

Much better to loot and pillage your town.

TimG · January 27, 2015

Just go stand in the Free Speech Zone and hold up a sign that says "I am a little upset." Rest assured your message will be heard loud and clear.

Well the Tea Party figured out that protests don't mean much so they joined the political process. You may not like what they stand for but they have been effective at getting their message heard and no stores were looted and burned.

kimmy · January 27, 2015

Law, order, and good government aren't just things we believe in because they're nice slogans. They're things we do because when we don't, shit gets real.

For an extreme example, go read about the Colorado coal mine war. The mining companies had carte-blanche to do whatever they wanted, including using violence against the workers and their families (notably, the Ludlow massacre). The miners couldn't very well go to the government; the Colorado government was in the pockets of the mining companies (state National Guard troops had even participated in the massacre.) Instead, the union obtained a hell of a lot of guns, and the miners spent the next few weeks attacking mines.

And that was ultimately what led to change. After the massacre, there was ink spilled and condemnation from polite society, but it wasn't until rich peoples' stuff started getting burned to the ground that the mining companies took the issue seriously. Serious reform only happened after a lot of blood was spilled and a lot of property was destroyed.

And hopefully from a situation like that we learn that it's important to be proactive and address issues before they explode into that kind of tragedy. Police aren't being proactive. They're doing the opposite, adopting a siege mentality. Things are not going to get better.

I do take issue with the narrative that it's about racism, though. I don't think cops are racist, I think they're prone to overuse force against people of all colors and backgrounds. This affects minorities disproportionately, because the cops interact with minorities more often in tense situations for reasons that we've all discussed before. But there's plenty of examples of white people getting their asses kicked by the cops as well. I don't think it's a matter of racism, I just think that there are too many within the police who use force excessively. And too many others who are protecting the "bad apples".

-k

Black Dog · January 27, 2015

It's nice to see someone supporting breaking the law as if it's the right thing.

Your reading comprehension remains a weak point.

Black Dog · January 27, 2015

Oh he believes in laws - he just believes that anyone who says things he likes should be allowed to break them but anyone who says things he does not like should be punished to the full extent of the law. i.e. I am pretty sure he would take a dim view of anti-abortion protesters who looted a clinic despite the fact that their "motivation" is social change.

And here is another dummy who doesn't understand that describing something is not the same as endorsing it.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Black Dog

Smallc · January 27, 2015

Your reading comprehension remains a weak point.

Not at all. You feel that as long as you agree with a cause, it's okay to break the law in the name of 'the right thing'. That's a pretty dangerous way to run a society.

Laws exist for a reason. If there's a problem, there are appropriate ways to deal. Violent protest isn't one of those ways. We've far passed the point where that is necessary in western society.

Smallc · January 27, 2015

And here is another dummy who doesn't understand that describing something is not the same as endorsing it.

quoted for posterity

Smallc · January 27, 2015

Law, order, and good government aren't just things we believe in because they're nice slogans. They're things we do because when we don't, shit gets real.

Definitely, which is kind of my point. We can't just disregard the law because we don't agree with a situation. There are ways - legal ways (including peaceful protest) to deal with these things.

For an extreme example, go read about the Colorado coal mine war. The mining companies had carte-blanche to do whatever they wanted, including using violence against the workers and their families (notably, the Ludlow massacre). The miners couldn't very well go to the government; the Colorado government was in the pockets of the mining companies (state National Guard troops had even participated in the massacre.) Instead, the union obtained a hell of a lot of guns, and the miners spent the next few weeks attacking mines.

And that was ultimately what led to change. After the massacre, there was ink spilled and condemnation from polite society, but it wasn't until rich peoples' stuff started getting burned to the ground that the mining companies took the issue seriously. Serious reform only happened after a lot of blood was spilled and a lot of property was destroyed.

This isn't the early 1900s. Now, when we have democratic rights and the right to peaceful assembly, the way forward is to get your message out there and work through the political machinery to get things done. Violent protest, in this age, does nothing but galvanize public support against you.

And hopefully from a situation like that we learn that it's important to be proactive and address issues before they explode into that kind of tragedy. Police aren't being proactive. They're doing the opposite, adopting a siege mentality. Things are not going to get better.

Their job is to protect the community being looted, not to stand with the protesters.

I do take issue with the narrative that it's about racism, though. I don't think cops are racist, I think they're prone to overuse force against people of all colors and backgrounds. This affects minorities disproportionately, because the cops interact with minorities more often in tense situations for reasons that we've all discussed before. But there's plenty of examples of white people getting their asses kicked by the cops as well. I don't think it's a matter of racism, I just think that there are too many within the police who use force excessively. And too many others who are protecting the "bad apples".

That sounds about right...though I'm sure some of them are racist (there are always some racists). These just don't seem like those types of situations.

Black Dog · January 27, 2015

Not at all. You feel that as long as you agree with a cause, it's okay to break the law in the name of 'the right thing'. That's a pretty dangerous way to run a society.

Strawman. Never said that.

Laws exist for a reason. If there's a problem, there are appropriate ways to deal. Violent protest isn't one of those ways. We've far passed the point where that is necessary in western society.

Because you say so?

Black Dog · January 27, 2015

quoted for posterity

Good, maybe if you read it a few more times, you'll start to grasp the meaning.

Smallc · January 27, 2015

Because you say so?

Because systems exist that allow any person to influence the outcome of events now. Not everyone always gets they want, as they can't. Rights of everyone have legal protection, and the democratic process allows for everyone to have a say. The era of violent revolt leading to political change is long over.

Black Dog · January 27, 2015

Because systems exist that allow any person to influence the outcome of events now.

Nonsense.

Not everyone always gets they want, as they can't. Rights of everyone have legal protection, and the democratic process allows for everyone to have a say.

I can't decide if this is simple naivete or trolling.

The era of violent revolt leading to political change is long over.

Good news for tyrants.

cybercoma · January 27, 2015

Hell, why even have laws?

My point being it's not as mind-numbingly simplistic as you would like it to be. Laws are not Right or Just simply because they exist. The Nuremberg Trials is just the most egregious example of that which highlights that laws should not necessarily be followed just because they exist.

cybercoma · January 27, 2015

I do take issue with the narrative that it's about racism, though. I don't think cops are racist, I think they're prone to overuse force against people of all colors and backgrounds. This affects minorities disproportionately, because the cops interact with minorities more often in tense situations for reasons that we've all discussed before.

-k

Those reasons we've discussed before are institutional and systemic racism. This isn't about individual cops being prejudiced. That has been explained many times before too. It is about racism. It's not about individual bigotry, although I'm sure in some it's about that too.

cybercoma · January 27, 2015

Because you say so?

It's the modern day equivalent of calling them "uppity niggers" who don't know their place.

Smallc · January 27, 2015

Nonsense.

We have a democratic system in the western world overall that is unrivalled in human history, as are our political and human protections.

I can't decide if this is simple naivete or trolling.

I can't help you with that.

Good news for tyrants.

We don't have tyrants in the west generally any more. Welcome to the future.

My point being it's not as mind-numbingly simplistic as you would like it to be. Laws are not Right or Just simply because they exist. The Nuremberg Trials is just the most egregious example of that which highlights that laws should not necessarily be followed just because they exist.

And if you're not going to follow them, you'd better have a pretty good justification. A huge kid attacking a police officer isn't one of those reasons.

Those reasons we've discussed before are institutional and systemic racism.

Concepts that a large percentage of the population reject...and the discussion goes full circle.

cybercoma · January 27, 2015

Because systems exist that allow any person to influence the outcome of events now.

ANY person? Not even remotely.

Not everyone always gets they want, as they can't.

Oh. So not every person.

You know what people want?

Cops to stop killing unarmed people, particularly black youth whom they're disproportionately murdering. And your response to that is "suck it, buttercup. You can't always get what you want."