RugbyRebels

Puja

Which is fine in part, but also puerile and counter productive in part. I'd also disagree with the assertion persuasion has failed, BAME voting has a lot of headroom to improve and deliver a change in systems across the board.

I’d also argue that many protests don’t go far enough in disruption. Take Belarus. They should be doing the same as the Romanians did in 89, taking Lukaschenko out back and putting an end to it, screw the consequences.

And if those riots hand Trump a victory in November then don’t moan about the lack of improvement in race relations thereafter.

Protestors are fine. Looters are not and the people they are hurting the most aren’t the rich and powerful but ordinary people.

Stom wrote:I’d also argue that many protests don’t go far enough in disruption. Take Belarus. They should be doing the same as the Romanians did in 89, taking Lukaschenko out back and putting an end to it, screw the consequences.

There is an alternative to direct action in actual democracies. Belarus has just seen a sham election so I agree there isn’t much else to do in order for change to happen.

It is possible to change leadership peacefully in the US. Rioting is over tome counterproductive.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:I’d also argue that many protests don’t go far enough in disruption. Take Belarus. They should be doing the same as the Romanians did in 89, taking Lukaschenko out back and putting an end to it, screw the consequences.

There is an alternative to direct action in actual democracies. Belarus has just seen a sham election so I agree there isn’t much else to do in order for change to happen.

It is possible to change leadership peacefully in the US. Rioting is over tome counterproductive.

I completely disagree. The system is broken in the USA. You can’t fix it from within. You need drastic action from outside.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:I’d also argue that many protests don’t go far enough in disruption. Take Belarus. They should be doing the same as the Romanians did in 89, taking Lukaschenko out back and putting an end to it, screw the consequences.

There is an alternative to direct action in actual democracies. Belarus has just seen a sham election so I agree there isn’t much else to do in order for change to happen.

It is possible to change leadership peacefully in the US. Rioting is over tome counterproductive.

I completely disagree. The system is broken in the USA. You can’t fix it from within. You need drastic action from outside.

So white supremacists are free to don pointy white hats and act as they consider necessary to deliver the society they want?

That would be my problem with such thinking, it's not only going to apply to those who protest in a manner you approve of

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: There is an alternative to direct action in actual democracies. Belarus has just seen a sham election so I agree there isn’t much else to do in order for change to happen.

It is possible to change leadership peacefully in the US. Rioting is over tome counterproductive.

I completely disagree. The system is broken in the USA. You can’t fix it from within. You need drastic action from outside.

So white supremacists are free to don pointy white hats and act as they consider necessary to deliver the society they want?

That would be my problem with such thinking, it's not only going to apply to those who protest in a manner you approve of

Apartheid is a minority opinion and morally indefensible. You seem to not have factored moral obligation into your calculation of what is appropriate.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
I completely disagree. The system is broken in the USA. You can’t fix it from within. You need drastic action from outside.

So white supremacists are free to don pointy white hats and act as they consider necessary to deliver the society they want?

That would be my problem with such thinking, it's not only going to apply to those who protest in a manner you approve of

Apartheid is a minority opinion and morally indefensible. You seem to not have factored moral obligation into your calculation of what is appropriate.

Ignoring that white supremacists think they're morally correct so I don't think citing a moral obligation helps much what I think is appropriate is not to have violence in society, it's just an awful lot of people disagree with me. It's possible however a majority of people would agree with me there shouldn't be violent protests, if that's the case and the pro violent protest crowd no matter how large remain a minority would we then agree violent protests are morally indefensible? Still more so when there are alternatives in the USA

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:
So white supremacists are free to don pointy white hats and act as they consider necessary to deliver the society they want?

That would be my problem with such thinking, it's not only going to apply to those who protest in a manner you approve of

Apartheid is a minority opinion and morally indefensible. You seem to not have factored moral obligation into your calculation of what is appropriate.

Ignoring that white supremacists think they're morally correct so I don't think citing a moral obligation helps much what I think is appropriate is not to have violence in society, it's just an awful lot of people disagree with me. It's possible however a majority of people would agree with me there shouldn't be violent protests, if that's the case and the pro violent protest crowd no matter how large remain a minority would we then agree violent protests are morally indefensible? Still more so when there are alternatives in the USA

Firstly, everyone has a limit. It’s called critical mass.

Secondly, what alternatives are there? You’ve seen the reactions of police commissioners and sheriffs. With white suprematists in positions of power, options are definitely limited.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:
Apartheid is a minority opinion and morally indefensible. You seem to not have factored moral obligation into your calculation of what is appropriate.

Ignoring that white supremacists think they're morally correct so I don't think citing a moral obligation helps much what I think is appropriate is not to have violence in society, it's just an awful lot of people disagree with me. It's possible however a majority of people would agree with me there shouldn't be violent protests, if that's the case and the pro violent protest crowd no matter how large remain a minority would we then agree violent protests are morally indefensible? Still more so when there are alternatives in the USA

Firstly, everyone has a limit. It’s called critical mass.

Secondly, what alternatives are there? You’ve seen the reactions of police commissioners and sheriffs. With white suprematists in positions of power, options are definitely limited.

Options may indeed be limited, but that would be the case on the flip side of massive violent protests. If there was a magic red button to make everything not just ideal but much better I'd opt for that, but I simply don't think there is one, so it's the long slow bore of politics or not a lot as regards moving a society.

Which leaves the option protest peaceably and to vote. Black voting in the USA is around 60% and actually dipped in the 2016 election, that's pretty much on a par with white voting communities overall, and then asian and latino communities come in at around 45% of the electorate actually voting. So there's a huge opportunity to turn out the vote and turn elections the way you want. If you don't like the candidates then join a party, vote for the candidates you do want. And if that fails try again.

But certainly don't vote below 80% and then tell me you've tried everything, you might as well tell me the dog ate your homework.

I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

Mikey Brown wrote:I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

And that's not even to mention the amount of voter disenfranchisement that goes on. Election day not a national holiday, polling stations limited in poor neighbourhoods, voter ID laws, enthusiastic culling of electoral rolls, removing the vote from criminals - all things which disproportionately (and deliberately) hit black and hispanic voting, before you get onto gerrymandering and the two-party system meaning the choices are often between bad and slightly worse, which discourage people from believing their vote makes a difference.

Puja

And again

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
Ignoring that white supremacists think they're morally correct so I don't think citing a moral obligation helps much what I think is appropriate is not to have violence in society, it's just an awful lot of people disagree with me. It's possible however a majority of people would agree with me there shouldn't be violent protests, if that's the case and the pro violent protest crowd no matter how large remain a minority would we then agree violent protests are morally indefensible? Still more so when there are alternatives in the USA

Firstly, everyone has a limit. It’s called critical mass.

Secondly, what alternatives are there? You’ve seen the reactions of police commissioners and sheriffs. With white suprematists in positions of power, options are definitely limited.

Options may indeed be limited, but that would be the case on the flip side of massive violent protests. If there was a magic red button to make everything not just ideal but much better I'd opt for that, but I simply don't think there is one, so it's the long slow bore of politics or not a lot as regards moving a society.

Which leaves the option protest peaceably and to vote. Black voting in the USA is around 60% and actually dipped in the 2016 election, that's pretty much on a par with white voting communities overall, and then asian and latino communities come in at around 45% of the electorate actually voting. So there's a huge opportunity to turn out the vote and turn elections the way you want. If you don't like the candidates then join a party, vote for the candidates you do want. And if that fails try again.

But certainly don't vote below 80% and then tell me you've tried everything, you might as well tell me the dog ate your homework.

Fuck off.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: There is an alternative to direct action in actual democracies. Belarus has just seen a sham election so I agree there isn’t much else to do in order for change to happen.

It is possible to change leadership peacefully in the US. Rioting is over tome counterproductive.

I completely disagree. The system is broken in the USA. You can’t fix it from within. You need drastic action from outside.

So white supremacists are free to don pointy white hats and act as they consider necessary to deliver the society they want?

That would be my problem with such thinking, it's not only going to apply to those who protest in a manner you approve of

Fuck off.

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:
So white supremacists are free to don pointy white hats and act as they consider necessary to deliver the society they want?

That would be my problem with such thinking, it's not only going to apply to those who protest in a manner you approve of

Apartheid is a minority opinion and morally indefensible. You seem to not have factored moral obligation into your calculation of what is appropriate.

Ignoring that white supremacists think they're morally correct so I don't think citing a moral obligation helps much what I think is appropriate is not to have violence in society, it's just an awful lot of people disagree with me. It's possible however a majority of people would agree with me there shouldn't be violent protests, if that's the case and the pro violent protest crowd no matter how large remain a minority would we then agree violent protests are morally indefensible? Still more so when there are alternatives in the USA

Fuck off.

Digby wrote:Which is fine in part, but also puerile and counter productive in part. I'd also disagree with the assertion persuasion has failed, BAME voting has a lot of headroom to improve and deliver a change in systems across the board.

Fuck off.

Mikey Brown wrote:I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

And continual rioting is achieving what exactly? Except to give Trump ammunition against Biden.

Which Tyler wrote:And again

Nice graphic but who was stopping people taking the knee or protesting peacefully? The fs this that peaceful protest is permitted and violent riots are rightly condemned.

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:And again

Nice graphic but who was stopping people taking the knee or protesting peacefully? .

Literally Trump and his friends in charge of the sports leagues.

Puja

I'd like to take a moment to note that I officially hate the argument that "Protests are costing Biden the election and will lead to another 4 years of Trump." No, Biden is costing himself the election by being milquetoast and unwilling to commit to any policy or position that isn't, "I'm not Donald Trump," that he's allowing Trump to define his position for him as a radical dangerous extremist that wants to abolish police, the suburbs, and whiteness.

It's become an election of both sides shouting that the other is terrible and is going to destroy America. It doesn't matter that Biden's telling the truth and Trump is lying - Trump is just flat-out better at that kind of game. If the protests stopped tomorrow, then it won't magically take away Trump's attack lines or give Biden any more credibility. Biden's already allowed Trump to define him and I'm genuinely concerned that he's not going to be able to come back from it.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:And again

Nice graphic but who was stopping people taking the knee or protesting peacefully? The fs this that peaceful protest is permitted and violent riots are rightly condemned.

It's not unfair comment that many people captured there faced ridiculous criticism for their protests, but yeah, peaceful protests are very much permitted and to be encouraged even. Unless they delay me getting on a train out of Euston in which case I loathe the protestors and whatever they stand for

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

And continual rioting is achieving what exactly? Except to give Trump ammunition against Biden.

Nothing, apparently. It turns out that property damage is the ultimate crime here. It doesn’t matter how many times police show themselves to have no remote understanding of reasonable force, how to de-escalate a situation or even attempting to address the apparent racial prejudices that make people so fearful. Those are the outliers, no matter how open they are in their intention to continue that way.

If there’s no pretence of law enforcement holding themselves to a higher standard why would you expect anyone else to? It doesn’t seem to matter who is even perpetrating this violence and rioting, it’s all considered valid ammo against BLM.

I’m not sure what it takes to qualify as rioting, but I expect many people naively thought there would be some sort of disruptive action they could take to force change. I don’t think burning down buildings and smashing shops to pieces is a good thing at all, but when you see the rules change in front of your eyes, with armed vigilantes given a green light to walk the streets and threaten your lives, I can see why you might just give up on the whole ‘law and order’ thing.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:And again

Nice graphic but who was stopping people taking the knee or protesting peacefully? The fs this that peaceful protest is permitted and violent riots are rightly condemned.

It's not unfair comment that many people captured there faced ridiculous criticism for their protests, but yeah, peaceful protests are very much permitted and to be encouraged even. Unless they delay me getting on a train out of Euston in which case I loathe the protestors and whatever they stand for

Fuck off.