Originally posted by Surtur
low life thugs ceasing the rioting could help quell anger
I think most people want the rioting to stop, there's just disagreement over what the best way to do that is, and also what rights one should afford the people one perceives as enemies. As such one idea is the more authoritarian, "throw more police at them, beat them until they stop rioting", the other is one that's more diplomatic, I suppose, "look at the demands of the movement, and implement parts that are sensible and just". I personally am much more drawn to the latter, because I do think there are very valid reasons why people are angry, and those should be fixed, and I also think an authoritarian response leads to more violence both now and in the long term.
Originally posted by Artol
I think most people want the rioting to stop, there's just disagreement over what the best way to do that is, and also what rights one should afford the people one perceives as enemies. As such one idea is the more authoritarian, "throw more police at them, beat them until they stop rioting", the other is one that's more diplomatic, I suppose, "look at the demands of the movement, and implement parts that are sensible and just". I personally am much more drawn to the latter, because I do think there are very valid reasons why people are angry, and those should be fixed, and I also think an authoritarian response leads to more violence both now and in the long term.
But is it dangerous perhaps for anyone to defend it?
I saw a sad feminist site defending it. In fact they said improving your life with some creature comforts during such a time was political resistance.
That's pathetic and wrong, right?
Originally posted by Artol
I think most people want the rioting to stop, there's just disagreement over what the best way to do that is, and also what rights one should afford the people one perceives as enemies. As such one idea is the more authoritarian, "throw more police at them, beat them until they stop rioting", the other is one that's more diplomatic, I suppose, "look at the demands of the movement, and implement parts that are sensible and just". I personally am much more drawn to the latter, because I do think there are very valid reasons why people are angry, and those should be fixed, and I also think an authoritarian response leads to more violence both now and in the long term.
So you are more in line with give the people committing violence in the pursuit of a political agenda what they want in the hope that they agree to stop committing violence?
Originally posted by Silent Master
So you are more in line with give the people committing violence in the pursuit of a political agenda what they want in the hope that they agree to stop committing violence?
That's a very loaded question, but yes, if the demands are sensible
Originally posted by Surtur
But is it dangerous perhaps for anyone to defend it?I saw a sad feminist site defending it. In fact they said improving your life with some creature comforts during such a time was political resistance.
That's pathetic and wrong, right?
Are you talking about these riots in specific? I can understand why the opinions are split there. But if we talk in the abstract I think we can both agree that riots can be acceptable or even morally the right thing to do. Some near universal examples would be riots against Nazi rule in the 40s, or for many Americans riots by the revolutionaries in the lead up to the war of Independence are viewed as just, right?
Originally posted by Artol
That's a very loaded question, but yes, if the demands are sensibleAre you talking about these riots in specific? I can understand why the opinions are split there. But if we talk in the abstract I think we can both agree that riots can be acceptable or even morally the right thing to do. Some near universal examples would be riots against Nazi rule in the 40s, or for many Americans riots by the revolutionaries in the lead up to the war of Independence are viewed as just, right?
“the idea that looting is opportunistic folly negating the fight for justice is patently absurd. Improving one’s life with some creature comforts in the face of state violence—in the face of state forces that can make living comfortably a challenge—is an act of political resistance.”
^Can anyone but a piece of dog shit utter that?
Originally posted by Surtur
“the idea that looting is opportunistic folly negating the fight for justice is patently absurd. Improving one’s life with some creature comforts in the face of state violence—in the face of state forces that can make living comfortably a challenge—is an act of political resistance.”^Can anyone but a piece of dog shit utter that?
I mean I don't know your politics, but to me this statement sounds like most people would agree, but in different circumstances. A lot of conservative leaning Republicans would agree when it comes to the perceived overreach of the federal government, for example. Things like "if you want my guns take them from my cold, dead hands" are statements made in the same mind space, imo.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Who decides what is sensible?
Well, in a Democracy I would say the first level of that is the executive, which then works together with the legislative body (under the supervision of the courts) to implement changes. All of this hopefully being legitimized by the will of the people and a robust rule of law.
Originally posted by Artol
I mean I don't know your politics, but to me this statement sounds like most people would agree, but in different circumstances. A lot of conservative leaning Republicans would agree when it comes to the perceived overreach of the federal government, for example. Things like "if you want my guns take them from my cold, dead hands" are statements made in the same mind space, imo.
Holy shit can't you just say "that dumb kunt is wrong" ?
Originally posted by Artol
I mean I don't know your politics, but to me this statement sounds like most people would agree, but in different circumstances. A lot of conservative leaning Republicans would agree when it comes to the perceived overreach of the federal government, for example. Things like "if you want my guns take them from my cold, dead hands" are statements made in the same mind space, imo.
No, they're not. "if you want my guns take them from my cold, dead hands" is a statement about protecting someone's rights/property. while the other is a statement defending the act of stealing.
Originally posted by Artol
Well, in a Democracy I would say the first level of that is the executive, which then works together with the legislative body (under the supervision of the courts) to implement changes. All of this hopefully being legitimized by the will of the people and a robust rule of law.
Trump is currently head of the executive branch, so he gets to make the call in regards to what is sensible?
Originally posted by Silent Master
No, they're not. "if you want my guns take them from my cold, dead hands" is a statement about protecting someone's rights/property. while the other is a statement defending the act of stealing.
That's really a point of view issue. If the government comes to take your guns it's clearly illegal within the system to own them, so you are breaking the law, I would personally even agree that that can be an unjust law and you are morally justified to break it. But similarly, if you believe that the laws that have lead to the system where there's huge inequality are unjust, you may view the act of stealing as a justified act with a very similar argumentation of protecting your rights as a human.
It's a bit of an abstract discussion, I don't think this is the thinking of most people who do loot, they probably either are desperate, selfish or thrill seekers, rather than thinking about how their actions influence political power balances.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Trump is currently head of the executive branch, so he gets to make the call in regards to what is sensible?
Yes, he de-facto does, we can see this playing out right now. He's of course not the only actor with influence in a federal system with a balance of powers like the US, but as the first step Trump gets to decide, and he seems to tend towards the authoritarian response. I personally think that's the wrong response to fix the issue, but Trump and I generally have very different politics.
Originally posted by Artol
That's really a point of view issue. If the government comes to take your guns it's clearly illegal within the system to own them, so you are breaking the law, I would personally even agree that that can be an unjust law and you are morally justified to break it. But similarly, if you believe that the laws that have lead to the system where there's huge inequality are unjust, you may view the act of stealing as a justified act with a very similar argumentation of protecting your rights as a human.It's a bit of an abstract discussion, I don't think this is the thinking of most people who do loot, they probably either are desperate, selfish or thrill seekers, rather than thinking about how their actions influence political power balances.
The statement was about the government going against the constitution and illegally taking your guns.
Originally posted by Silent Master
The statement was about the government going against the constitution and illegally taking your guns.
That would be your interpretation of the constitution, if the government actually comes to take your guns it likely has changed or interpreted the laws in a way that justifies its actions. Clearly already there are acceptable limits in the US on weapon ownership.
Again though, I feel like you are having a reaction towards a right you perceive as important while others can claim other rights that they feel important as a justification (even beyond the constitution of the United States).