Debate Violent during riots

[Zeostar]

I was up watching the riots taking place across various states until about 1:00 AM. Being not too far off from Washington DC, seeing this occur in an area I'm familiar with hit much more personally.

Witnessing the stores being burned and ransacked, explosives being thrown down the streets, officers being dragged out of cars, was all much more violence in these riots than I've ever seen in my own lifetime.

Do you think the violence is ever justified? Not just pertaining to this particular situation, but in any kind of riot? If so, when is it too far?

I understand the frustrations and why the protests were happening, but when witnessing the business owners being targeted and random buildings being defaced, they just seem to lose the original purpose of protesting. It turns violent for the sake of having that chance to be violent. When destroying the businesses of innocent people who had nothing to do with the situation, it almost brings you to the level of what your protesting against.

Just my own thoughts on this, am interested to hear other opinions.

 

[Caite-chan]

You can have a protest with nothing bad happening. You have a right to demonstrate and protest. You don't have a right to loot and raid. That absolutely solves nothing other than going to jail, making it worse or even death. I don't understand why people push it this far, I get it you're pissed off but adding fuel to the fire isn't going to make it better.

 

[CiCi]

Destroying their own community (actually, plenty of these people most likely don't belong to this community and have no stakes or empathy) is stupidity. If they were attacking government or police buildings, I would be more understanding. But that's not what's happening. It's people setting fires to low-income housing and destroying small (black-owned, might I add) businesses. It's wrong and if you support it, you're an idiot who clearly doesn't understand what's actually happening.

George Floyd should not have died, and if what I read is believed to be true, he loved his city and hated previous riots. He would be distraught to see what happened "in the name of his death" (which, again, is not what this about anymore). And I don't feel bad for any of the rioters who were shot by the people in their community who were only trying to protect themselves, like some of the Korean population or the store owner who exercised their 2nd Amendment Rights.

And if there's anybody here who actually wants to do something instead of posting virtue-signaling crap on their social media, maybe donate to one of the many black business owners who lost their livelihood because of trash human beings looting and wreaking havoc on a community they clearly don't give a shit about.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/scores-bar-mpls-riot-rebuild

 

[Kanzler]

https://www.courthousenews.com/minn...-arrested-looters-to-white-supremacist-groups

Didn't realize that this was the better thread for the article, but here it is. It looks like most of the violence is caused by opportunists trying to advance their white supremacist agenda and discredit the protests. Too often during these events the violence and riots is reduced to the sentiment of "black people are just doing it to themselves" when there are clearly ulterior motives at play. You will find that people will use every trick in the book to brand the protests as meaningless and misplaced.

 

[CiCi]

https://www.courthousenews.com/minn...-arrested-looters-to-white-supremacist-groups

Didn't realize that this was the better thread for the article, but here it is. It looks like most of the violence is caused by opportunists trying to advance their white supremacist agenda and discredit the protests. Too often during these events the violence and riots is reduced to the sentiment of "black people are just doing it to themselves" when there are clearly ulterior motives at play. You will find that people will use every trick in the book to brand the protests as meaningless and misplaced.

Nowhere in the article does it say "most of the looters". The actual quote is:
[...]some of the 40 arrests made in the Twin Cities Friday night were of people linked to white supremacist groups and organized crime.
A portion of 40 arrests. Look at any video of these looters and rioters and most of the people are black. This article is nonsense.

The protests were peaceful until outsiders came in and ruined it. That does not make these outsiders "white supremacists".

 

[Kanzler]

Nowhere in the article does it say "most of the looters". The actual quote is:
[...]some of the 40 arrests made in the Twin Cities Friday night were of people linked to white supremacist groups and organized crime.
A portion of 40 arrests. Look at any video of these looters and rioters and most of the people are black. This article is nonsense.

The protests were peaceful until outsiders came in and ruined it. That does not make these outsiders "white supremacists".

How is the article nonsense? It's literally just quoting Governor Walz and Mayor Carter. The department of safety commissioner is also investigating white supremacist groups who are posting online an encouraging their members to infiltrate the protests. All of this is clear in the article. If you have an issue with the content of the article, you really have an issue with their assessment of the situation. And who are you to have perused some videos versus those whose jobs are to collect all the available information, make decisions and communicate to the public?

 

[Nah]

As nice as it would be if all problems could be solved in a peaceful manner, it'd be naive to think that could ever be reality. Sometimes getting violent is the only real option to get done what needs to be done.

Though if you're going to get violent, it needs to be directed at the right things and not at unrelated stuff. Often times part of the violence that affects people and things unrelated to the problem are, as has been said, from people trying to make the protest look bad and discredit it, but not literally every case is that.

To be honest though, things in the U.S. need to go further than (violent) riots in the streets.

 

[CiCi]

How is the article nonsense? It's literally just quoting Governor Walz and Mayor Carter. The department of safety commissioner is also investigating white supremacist groups who are posting online an encouraging their members to infiltrate the protests. All of this is clear in the article. If you have an issue with the content of the article, you really have an issue with their assessment of the situation. And who are you to have perused some videos versus those whose jobs are to collect all the available information, make decisions and communicate to the public?

Did you even read the article? The only allusion toward white supremacy I already pointed out in my direct quote. 40 people. Out of them, only 'some' were white supremacists, supposedly. The article is intentionally misleading. There were far more than 40 looters and rioters. Posts online are not evidence that "most of the looters" are white supremacists.

My perusal of videos isn't "better" than what some politicians say, though I'd argue it's more truthful. If you really trust the word of politicians still, then I don't know what to tell you. They're known liars, thieves, and generally horrible people. But the point is if you look at the videos, the pictures -- of which there are so many online -- you see the majority of these people are black. There are a few scattered whites and other non-blacks there, as to be expected, but they are mostly black. I simply don't believe that most of the looters are white supremacists given all the evidence I've seen. Now if we can come up with a more substantial article... Unfortunately, the one we have is nonsense.

 

[Her]

if violence is the only language oppressors understand, then i fully support protestors using violence in service of fighting against those that want them dead

 

[Kanzler]

Did you even read the article? The only allusion toward white supremacy I already pointed out in my direct quote. 40 people. Out of them, only 'some' were white supremacists, supposedly. The article is intentionally misleading. There were far more than 40 looters and rioters. Posts online are not evidence that "most of the looters" are white supremacists.

My perusal of videos isn't "better" than what some politicians say, though I'd argue it's more truthful. If you really trust the word of politicians still, then I don't know what to tell you. They're known liars, thieves, and generally horrible people. But the point is if you look at the videos, the pictures -- of which there are so many online -- you see the majority of these people are black. There are a few scattered whites and other non-blacks there, as to be expected, but they are mostly black. I simply don't believe that most of the looters are white supremacists given all the evidence I've seen. Now if we can come up with a more substantial article... Unfortunately, the one we have is nonsense.

I'm not sure where our disagreement is. I'm not sure why you're emphasizing that we should parse the difference between "most" and "some" of the "looters" or the "violence". Here are all the relevant quotes or references to quotes made regarding who the worst troublemakers are:

Later in the day, Walz said 2,500 guardsmen and women would be activated. He said about 80% of those arrested for looting and vandalism could be outside agitators.

"Our great cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are under assault by people who do not share our values, who do not value life and the work that went into this and are certainly not here to honor George Floyd," Walz said. "They need to see today that that line will stop and order needs to be restored."

St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter said most of the arrests made last night were of people from out of state and while "there's a group of folks that are sad and mourning," he said "there seems to be another group that are using Mr. Floyd's death as a cover to create havoc."

Department of Safety Commissioner John Harrington said they are contact-tracing the arrested and added that an investigation is underway about white nationalist groups posting online to encourage their members to use the protests as a cover to create chaos.

He said some of the 40 arrests made in the Twin Cities Friday night were of people linked to white supremacist groups and organized crime.

"The people that are doing this are not Minneapolis residents," Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said. "They are coming largely from outside the city outside the region to prey on everything we have built."

The salient point here is that most of the violence is caused by people who aren't direct stakeholders according to the governor, the mayor, and a commissioner. They made 40 arrests, obviously they didn't and can't arrest everybody, but you'd think they'd be arresting the worst offenders. The article doesn't spell it out for you word for word, but you look at what the officials are referring to, people coming from outside, investigating white supremacist ties, etc, and I think you have a good idea of what's going on.

The media outlet is a news source designed for lawyers. The target audience is people who can read between the lines and don't need everything spelled out to get what is going on. You are free to disagree and call the article "nonsense" of course, but I will let the other readers of this thread know in more detail about where the source is coming from.

 

[Caite-chan]

I've also seen people posting on Facebook about the guy who spray-painted the police car in Pittsburgh before setting it on fire and running off to make him famous. That's the last thing we should be doing. Figure out who he is so he can be arrested. Getting famous is what he wants and that's the last thing he deserves.

 

[gimmepie]

Violence is a last resort, always, but I'd be lying if I said that I don't understand why some people feel like that's the point they are at. The problem though, is that untargeted violence unleashed upon the world is never going to do anything but bolster arguments against you. It also leaves you vulnerable to the very situation that Kanzler is talking about. My thoughts here at that this was probably not the time for violence, especially in such an unrestrained manner, it's hurting more than it's helping.

 

[Ys]

SawI agree with Caite-chan, Gimmepie and Cici-Sama. Violence is not the answer unless it's self-defence but that's definitely not the case here. Like Caite said, they are only fueling the fire. And I disagree with violence justifying more violence. And there's evidence of non-violent protests being effective so it's never the 'only option'. Sad how the other side seems to be showing equal levels of racism/hatred.

When destroying the businesses of innocent people who had nothing to do with the situation, it almost brings you to the level of what your protesting against.

Not 'almost' lol. It makes you just as bad, not 'almost'. In fact, looting isn't even related to the problem. It's just used as an excuse. :/

I'm not defending either side, in case that wasn't clear. Just saying that one thing never justifies the other.

 

[Nah]

I don't know about you, but using force for the purpose of ending oppression and using force to oppress people are not really that similar. Not talking about the people using protests as an excuse to do unrelated looting here.

In days past, peaceful protests and such did have an effect, but I think that we're at a point where that's not the case anymore.

 

[Mobile Tsk]

I have to be a bit more reserved and impartial in my dealings on sites that have my real name and occupation on them. I will of course be civil and appropriate here, but I will say that I unequivocally support the actions of the protesters, including the violent actions meant to promote a separate agenda of tearing down corporate and political power structures. There will be no fundamental change until the system of white supremacy is uprooted. This clearly cannot be done through peaceful protest - besides, the supporters of the President had a problem with that approach, too. They again made everything about them, without viewing the world from the lens of someone else's experience. Property can always be rebuilt. It's sad for the small business owners that are impacted, but they don't have to wake up every day and be reminded that their family member was killed by the police because of the color of his skin and that none of the officers are really likely to meet true retribution from the case despite all of it being on film. That is what is being protested, and it is sickening to see the President deflect from the actual issue at hand - police brutality that disproportionately impacts young black men - and call for an expansion of the unaccountable militarized police force. This must be resisted by any means necessary.

 

[Ys]

Hmm. First off, is violence and force the same thing? Which are we talking about, then?

I agree there are/were cases where force is/was necessary. But is the objective equality and justice or revenge? If you ultimately want justice and equality imo there are different ways to do it. Also I agree that whites were the oppressors in the past. But what is keeping people oppressed nowadays, imo, is different things.

I personally don't think people's minds will change with violence against them. I think it only reaffirms their views that the other side is violent and reactive. Imo violence, and even force, may change things and may make things better in the short term, but in the long term, it may make things worse. Besides, if the oppressed use force and violence against their oppressors to get what they want aren't they becoming oppressors themselves?

Regardless, though, I agree with the sentiment of things not being right the way they are.

 

[Nah]

Hmm. First off, is violence and force the same thing? Which are we talking about, then?

I agree there are/were cases where force is/was necessary. But is the objective equality and justice or revenge? If you ultimately want justice and equality imo there are different ways to do it. Also I agree that whites were the oppressors in the past. But what is keeping people oppressed nowadays, imo, is different things.

I personally don't think people's minds will change with violence against them. I think it only reaffirms their views that the other side is violent and reactive. Imo violence, and even force, may change things and may make things better in the short term, but in the long term, it may make things worse. Besides, if the oppressed use force and violence against their oppressors to get what they want aren't they becoming oppressors themselves?

Regardless, though, I agree with the sentiment of things not being right the way they are.

I was using force as a sort of synonym for violence, but I probably should've just stuck with using the word violence. The idea isn't to use violence to change people's minds though, it's that violence is the only option to make things better precisely because too many people won't ever change their minds. Using violence against oppressors will only turn you into the new oppressors if you simply just reverse the roles instead of working to get true equality.

Earlier I had said that "things need to go further" than this, and what I was getting at is that I believe that the only thing that really has a chance of saving the United States from its list of problems is a revolution.

Most or all of the U.S.'s problems are not anything new. This is hardly the first time that a black person has been killed for no reason, hardly the first time that we've had a mass shooting, hardly the first time the poor and middle class have been fucked over in favor of the wealthy, hardly the first time that there's been zero accountability for politicians/police/celebrities, and so on (I'm not going to mention every single problem right now). People have been protesting and striking and trying to educate people and all that for a long time, and where have all the peaceful methods gotten us? Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere.

For the longest time I believed that you really could get most people to change for better and that the ones you couldn't were just a tiny, irrelevant minority. But I really can't believe that anymore, the world has shown too many times that's just not true for me to do so. You see, the problem isn't just the president, or just one (or both) of our major political parties, or just the media, or the just the corporations and the 1%, it's all of those things and more. It's a lot of people at the federal, state, and local levels of government, as well as the people and entities that support things as they are now. Like I said before, there's just too many people you can't change for the better.

We can't just wait for the boomers to die out, because all the problems won't just die out with them--we've all encountered people in our own generations that aren't all that unlike them, and so it'll just be forever passed on. We can't believe that voting will save us, because never enough people will vote for the truly progressive candidates at all levels of government to shift the balance.

Even if we do pretend for a moment that the peaceful methods truly can succeed, how long will it take? What do you tell the people dying and suffering right now? "Sorry about how things are shitty for you right now, but maybe in your great-grandkids' time everything will be better?".

A revolution of course has its own problem in that the chances of it working out well is low because the planets and stars have to align in the certain way for it to do so. Someone has to be willing to step up to the plate, has to be capable of leading a successful revolution, has to be capable of leading the country well, has to be able to be trusted to really do what's right when in power and not just become evil dictator #2409358, and has to lay the groundwork so it all lasts long-term.

But what other choice to we have? This is the way that leads to the least death and suffering in the end. The relatively short-term death and suffering a (successful) revolution would cause is a small price to pay compared to the continued immense death and suffering that will occur if we continue to let things go as they are, if we continue to engage in pursuing an obviously futile method.

 

[MarinaSpeaks]

I'm beginning to believe that yes, violence is.. possibly necessary. At least until we see a significant decrease in the frequency of these incidents, both general and racially influenced. Power abuse is never acceptable. In my honest opinion none of us can really say that we know 100% what the best route to take would be in situations like this, but I'll share my thoughts about what I think would be helpful.

Personally, I don't really believe that much is going to change unless we all work together. We could unite and form mass assemblies. The united states is very politically polarized and fragmented, and the way that this is all being handled is just... disorganized chaos?? I don't think we'll get very far this way. We need to always be capable of collectively working together to hold police, politicians etc accountable for their actions because as we've seen time and time again they won't hold their own accountable...

But on the positive side: I do believe that change is possible. But whether or not violence will help is something I can't really answer. What I do know however is that this country isn't united at all, in fact far from it. If we want change we all have to work together, gather everyone who can help us, form our own alliance, and carefully plan our steps.

 

[Venia Silente]

Most if not all countries believe, at the foundation of what makes them countries, that violence is justified. It's even in their constitutional charters, where they for example have a set of terms upon which they will declare War - thus, an instance where violence is an acceptable path to be chosen. And not necessarily limited to be declared against foreign entities.

The thing about violence, and I think I have mentioned it in other debates, is that while it is the best device available in modern society to fight bureaucracy and oppression, it only mostly works correctly when used after most/all other alternatives have failed. Most protest movements and most oppression movements in the 21st Century unfortunately tend to skip a large number of steps in the, to call it somewhat, chivalry of social combat.

That said, the current situation including the original killing that "sparkled" this is unfortunately the latest in a long chain of things that should not have happened. Even Superman has canonically stated that the US is built on the backs of dead slaves and thus no better than other countries in that respect. It is long past the time that violence should have been used to solve these underlying issues, as most other means have repeatedly failed, including the last Presidential Election in the US where it actually turned completely backwards. It's easy to say "Killing Floyd should not have ended up in riots" if that's the most long-term memory you are conveniently capable of; but the problem is really "The foundation of the US should not have ended in killing Floyd" and there is a fair point of turning to violence because that's just (way past) the straw that broke the camel's back.

I wish, however, it was a more controlled or better paced violence. "Burn specific people and specific places at specific times" kind of thing, instead of just a general disorder, because when there's "controlled disorder" it's easy to distinguish and act against those who are using it to their own benefit instead of those who actually have a righteous cause, and you leave enough room for the people who are keeping average order to still protect the people who happen to just be out there on the streets and not really involved in the thing.

Unfortunately, since violence is the last call, once the match is thrown to the bushes you can't really choose ex post facto which tree did you "actually" want to burn.

For the time being, barring the issue of COVID taking advantage of the transmission factors, I think the best way for the country and for the world is that the riots continue and reorganize themselves better into less "riot" and more "resistance movement".

 

[Ys]

I take my statement about the other side also showing racism and hatred back. I realize that it was narrow. But you talk as if nothing at all had ever changed, and that isn't true at all. Each time, more and more people are working for the same objective as you are. I see your view, but I still think violence isn't the way. And sadly true change does take time, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I won't post again because I think I've strayed from the original topic xD but if anyone wants to talk directly, you're more than welcome to message me.