Baltimorei

[iris lilies]

I read something this morning about rioting and destruction of property being reframed when it's done by people we like. We call it the Boston tea party.

Ha. I tell DH that he would have likely been a Tory sympathizer in 1776 because he doesn't,t like to rocks boats.

[LDAHL]

Why bother trying to parse out the motivations behind a destructive act? Why not simply judge people by their actions rather than what we want to assume their reasons to be? That way we simply punish the crime as committed rather than try to delve into the soul of every thief and arsonist, avoiding all the relativist rhetorical sludge.

Hold individuals accountable for what they do in the real world. If someone is damaging firefighting equipment in active use, I think it's appropriate to shoot them. They're threatening lives, and should be dealt with accordingly. History, a lost championship, or racism or viewing "America" as some sort of abusive parent really don't matter to the people they're putting at risk.

[creaker]

I'm with you. A riot is a riot, a thug is a thug, destruction is destruction. Why are the Baltimore protestors, who are protesting police killings of unarmed Black men, evil while white rioters who carry out exactly the same actions because their team won or lost are described as celebrants? Just to make it crystal clear: I am very much against violence and destruction. I'm also against flat-out hypocrisy and double standards. And I consider the violence and rioting over a game - a GAME - immeasurably worse than riots over violated civil rights.

http://mic.com/articles/116680/11-st...like-baltimore

Protester does not automatically equal thug - but this seems to be what people and the media say. And not everyone who is a thug was a protester.

When property gets damaged and cars overturned after a sports event, we do not say sports spectators are thugs, we always say some folks got out of hand. But the protesters get smeared with a broad brush.

If there was a march to protest the riots and violence, or to march for the police, and some folks used the opportunity to cause more violence, are these protesters thugs as well?

[jp1]

Everyone, if pushed far enough, and angry enough, can go from anger to rage and lashing out. Even gay people, normally a very peaceful lot, have a couple of riots under our belts.

It would seem that there are two solutions. One, we can just mow the rioters down with bullets. Plenty of societies have attempted this method. The second solution is to actually look at why the people are rioting and make changes to end the cause of the anger and rage. Frankly, demilitarizing our police and teaching them ways to handle situations in ways that still keep them safe but don't result in people's spines getting broken seems like the better solution.

[LDAHL]

If there was a march to protest the riots and violence, or to march for the police, and some folks used the opportunity to cause more violence, are these protesters thugs as well?

The ones who "cause more violence"? Yes.

[bae]

I read something this morning about rioting and destruction of property being reframed when it's done by people we like. We call it the Boston tea party.

Yes, I see now that these folks are the moral equivalent to our Founding Fathers:

[bae]

As to root causes, here might be a spot to look:

[creaker]

The ones who "cause more violence"? Yes.

Agreed - but we seem to be saying that protesting = violence and all protesters are guilty of it. Dangerous road there - whoever speaks out is branded a criminal.

[bae]

Agreed - but we seem to be saying that protesting = violence and all protesters are guilty of it.

Who is saying that?

What I have seen in protests is that the overwhelming majority of protesters are peacefully engaging in their freedom of assembly and speech. And that there are a handful of jerks, anarchists, extremists of various stripes, and professional agitators who breeze in to take advantage of the situation.

Guess which ones make the headlines?

Protest, assembly, and petition is fine. Burning down a senior housing facility and a pharmacy, looting stores, and cutting the hoses of the firefighters is not fine. Simple concept.

Give the first group cookies and an ear. Give the second group something firmer....

[ApatheticNoMore]

read something this morning about rioting and destruction of property being reframed when it's done by people we like. We call it the Boston tea party.

can't you just say it's ineffective? Burning down neighborhoods most people in society won't even go to (I didn't say it's right or wrong they won't go to them, just that it's true), isn't going to change things. Now it's doubtful whether peaceful protest will either (it's not exactly a responsive system we live in) but I think it was doing better at having a hope of such (and non-violent protest was most of the "black lives matter" movement) than random unfocused violence. I could be wrong, maybe the riots help somehow, it's just that the only time they ever seemed to was arguably in the 60s although there were a much greater quantity of riots then. There's been plenty of riots since, change (in say police behavior or even inner city economic opportunities), not so much so.