Ferguson unrest

[Smallc]

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

If that's how you think of them I can see why you're so guilty.

[cybercoma]

If that's how you think of them I can see why you're so guilty.

Sorry you're having trouble understanding posts. That's what you are saying in not so many words.

[Smallc]

ANY person? Not even remotely.

You're right, there's nothing remote about it - it's an absolute truth.

Oh. So not every person.[

Everyone gets a say and influence. Not everyone gets the outcome they desire. This isn't anarchy.

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."

Some of them deserve it. Some of them don't. Each situation is individual and can't be a transposed onto a wider stage.

[Smallc]

Sorry you're having trouble understanding posts. That's what you are saying in not so many words.

In fact it's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. The reading comprehension is yours. I think of black people as people - certainly nothing less, and certainly nothing more. You're the one trying to shove words down my throat that don't at all apply to what I'm saying.

[Argus]

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.

The Tea Party are a band of pathetic losers who banded together in outrage at all that money going to corporations and now each has an alter to Donald Trump in their bedroom where they pray nightly for lower corporate taxes and less government regulation of Wall Street.

[kimmy]

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.

When long-standing grievances fail to achieve any sort of resolution, peoples' faith in "legal ways" of doing things diminishes and they find other outlets.

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.

The miners had all those rights in 1914. And most of the demands that they were striking for were already the law of the land in Colorado. In theory, the political machinery should have resolved the entire situation without any necessity for violence. It didn't, because the political machinery was heavily invested on the miners' owners' side of the dispute.

And today, on the issue of police accountability, the politicians are again on the side of the cops. See the di Blasio situation in New York for what happens when a politician steps out of line with the cops.

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

By the time this gets to looting and burning, the police have long past failed in responding proactively.

-k

[Black Dog]

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

Which is not to say they are perfect. Slavery, Jim Crow, voter suppression, redlining etc. all took place under this same regime.

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

Tyranny has many faces. People like you make it easier.

[Argus]

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."

You know what people want?

Young Black men to stop raping, murdering and robbing people.

Don't believe me? Take a poll. Ask the population at large whether they're more concerned with police killing young black men or young black men committing crimes. Overwhelmingly, they're more concerned with the latter. You can talk about cultural and economic reasons behind the violence from Black youth but the overall society in which they live in, while sympathetic to the issues, is not very sympathetic to the criminals commiting the crimes.

"Uhm, me and my bros, we gang raped that woman and beat her to death and set her on fire on account of, uh, life sucks cuz of racism."

The response to which will be "Kill them".

Edited January 27, 2015 by Argus

[poochy]

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

One might think that accusing others of racism for simply having an opinion different from their own would be unacceptable.

Edited January 27, 2015 by poochy

[poochy]

ANY person? Not even remotely.

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."

Tell us more about what we want, and then tell us why we want that, tell us why it isn't acceptable to think in any other way, tell us why your thoughts must be our thoughts, tell us why if we don't agree that we think they are ""uppity niggers" who don't know their place." You need a break.

[Smallc]

When long-standing grievances fail to achieve any sort of resolution, peoples' faith in "legal ways" of doing things diminishes and they find other outlets.

And society is generally not accepting of that...with good reason.

The miners had all those rights in 1914. And most of the demands that they were striking for were already the law of the land in Colorado. In theory, the political machinery should have resolved the entire situation without any necessity for violence. It didn't, because the political machinery was heavily invested on the miners' owners' side of the dispute.

All the recent gains in terms of the right to abortion, gay rights, aboriginal rights. They've all happened within the courts and the legislative houses of various countries. Violent protest would have been simply counter productive. This isn't the early 1900s.

And today, on the issue of police accountability, the politicians are again on the side of the cops. See the di Blasio situation in New York for what happens when a politician steps out of line with the cops.

Generally, yes, as the public generally has more support for police than the criminals that they may abuse. That doesn't mean it's always justified, and in those situations, where evidence of misdeeds is brought forward, we see public support change rapidly.

By the time this gets to looting and burning, the police have long past failed in responding proactively.

Sometimes...and sometimes people loot and burn because they want to.

Which is not to say they are perfect. Slavery, Jim Crow, voter suppression, redlining etc. all took place under this same regime.

Of course not. They aren't perfect, and are often slow. Still, those examples are for the most part, from the past.

Tyranny has many faces. People like you make it easier.

Tyrants don't have a very easy time in the kind of robust democracy that I support.

[Argus]

When long-standing grievances fail to achieve any sort of resolution, peoples' faith in "legal ways" of doing things diminishes and they find other outlets.

The problem is that those grievances are not always reasonable, and often contradicted, in a democratic state, by the desires and interests of the majority. The above could be used by any number of groups to justify violent action, from anti-abortionists to Muslims or hard-line Christians.

[Black Dog]

And society is generally not accepting of that...with good reason.

Yes the status quo often disapproves of things that disrupt the status quo. Big newsflash, that.

All the recent gains in terms of the right to abortion, gay rights, aboriginal rights. They've all happened within the courts and the legislative houses of various countries. Violent protest would have been simply counter productive. This isn't the early 1900s.

If violent or socially disruptive protest wasn't an option, none of those things would have ever gotten that far in the first place.

Of course not. They aren't perfect, and are often slow. Still, those examples are for the most part, from the past.

Tyrants don't have a very easy time in the kind of robust democracy that I support.

You don't really support robust democracy so much as a tyranny of respectability.

[Black Dog]

The problem is that those grievances are not always reasonable, and often contradicted, in a democratic state, by the desires and interests of the majority. The above could be used by any number of groups to justify violent action, from anti-abortionists to Muslims or hard-line Christians.

And the above could be used by a majority group to justify the oppression of any number of groups.

[Smallc]

Yes the status quo often disapproves of things that disrupt the status quo. Big newsflash, that.

If you want to make change, alienating the masses isn't a very good idea. People are far less sympathetic today to the plight of a privileged group.

If violent or socially disruptive protest wasn't an option, none of those things would have ever gotten that far in the first place.

That's categorically false in at least the first two examples, and probably in the third as well, as the court doesn't consider such things.

You don't really support robust democracy so much as a tyranny of respectability.

I like how you interest concepts that you happen to believe in and pretend that they're what I ascribe to.

And the above could be used by a majority group to justify the oppression of any number of groups.

And if my grandma had wheels...

[Black Dog]

If you want to make change, alienating the masses isn't a very good idea. People are far less sympathetic today to the plight of a privileged group.

What are you even talking about?

That's categorically false in at least the first two examples, and probably in the third as well, as the court doesn't consider such things.

Dunno what to say here. "Read a fucking book" probably cover it best.

I like how you interest concepts that you happen to believe in and pretend that they're what I ascribe to.

Just describing your value system based on your own words here. people need to work through the system. If the system is deaf or even actively hostile? Tough shit for them. It's far more important for the majority to not have their sensibilities offended.

[Smallc]

What are you even talking about?

Everyone in North America is privileged at this point in history. That's why there isn't much sympathy anymore for violent protest.

Dunno what to say here. "Read a fucking book" probably cover it best.

Being generally rude in a conversation does nothing to get your point across, though it generally does lead to you being considered as unable to properly communicate your position.

Just describing your value system based on your own words here. people need to work through the system. If the system is deaf or even actively hostile? Tough shit for them. It's far more important for the majority to not have their sensibilities offended.

The system isn't actively hostile to anyone.

[Argus]

And the above could be used by a majority group to justify the oppression of any number of groups.

Like anti-abortion advocates?

[Black Dog]

Like anti-abortion advocates?

What about them?

[Smallc]

The system isn't actively hostile to anyone.

...unless if course, they're actively hostile.

[Black Dog]

Everyone in North America is privileged at this point in history. That's why there isn't much sympathy anymore for violent protest.

Which says nothing about the necessity or utility of violent protest.

Being generally rude in a conversation does nothing to get your point across, though it generally does lead to you being considered as unable to properly communicate your position.

I can communicate just fine: simply don't feel the need to spoon feed you every time you hold forth on subjects you know nothing about. Saying that gay rights and abortion rights in particular were won without the aid of broken laws and windows is simply denying history.

The system isn't actively hostile to anyone.

[Smallc]

Which says nothing about the necessity or utility of violent protest.

It basically says that no one cares anymore, so you'd might as well sit down and do it the right way.

I can communicate just fine: simply don't feel the need to spoon feed you every time you hold forth on subjects you know nothing about. Saying that gay rights and abortion rights in particular were won without the aid of broken laws and windows is simply denying history.

The rights were won by court battles generally. By challenges put forward within the legal system. Broken laws didn't lead anywhere.

[Black Dog]

It basically says that no one cares anymore, so you'd might as well sit down and do it the right way.

All of this could have been said 40, 60, 100 years ago and today would look very different as a result. We're not in some special perfect moment in history here.

The rights were won by court battles generally. By challenges put forward within the legal system. Broken laws didn't lead anywhere.

Utter nonsense. None of this stuff even makes it on the docket without some kind of social momentum generated by social activism and protest and, yes, law breaking.

[Smallc]

All of this could have been said 40, 60, 100 years ago and today would look very different as a result. We're not in some special perfect moment in history here.

It's arguable that circumstances were very different then.

Utter nonsense. None of this stuff even makes it on the docket without some kind of social momentum generated by social activism and protest and, yes, law breaking.

Gay rights in Canada were won peacefully though the courts. The same will probably come a few more things (right to die, prostitution, etc) over the coming years. Peaceful protest was the root of this (the law was broken, but no one had to be hurt for it).

Edited January 27, 2015 by Smallc

[Black Dog]

It's arguable that circumstances were very different then.

But if the entrenched elites of the day argued (and indeed, they likely did) what you are arguing here, where would we be?

Gay rights in Canada were won peacefully though the courts. The same will probably come a few more things (right to die, prostitution, etc) over the coming years. Peaceful protest was the root of this (the law was broken, but no one had to be hurt for it).

I assume you're just being deliberately obtuse at this point, so I'm out.