US riots

[fightinfrenchman]

So you admit I was right in that you are dumb

[vardar]

So you admit I was right in that you are dumb

No what I said was dumb. My intelligence is not defined by remarks I later find distasteful and not fully true. You literally did nothing to prove what I said was dumb. You wait for others to comment then say “ha, told you so.”

[princeofcarthage]

Well for one there is no generalized approach, in this case however yes. Police resources are spread too thin. As evident by past couple days police only arrive at business after its looted. It is practically impossible for them to defend public property unless: 1) Protests are in a limited area. 2) They are completely quelled. Police are unable to limit protesters currently to small areas and as such there is no option other than to quell them. Ofc there is the 3rd alternative of letting the country if that is what you want.

In this case you would need to prove that (using the word "riot" here to denote violent acts by citizens and "protest" to denote nonviolent ones):

1. Acquiescing to demands by protesters would not reduce or eliminate the riots
2. Violently suppressing riots and protests won't have the reverse effect of emboldening both
3. It isn't possible to violently suppress only the riots and not the protests

Of course, this assumes that suppressing both wouldn't cause greater harm (both in terms of property and loss of life) than other measures, and assumes that rioting isn't an inevitable consequence of any sufficiently large protest (a position that I reject).

On earlier post, you are making a bad faith argument if you are saying "you said 5 there are 6". Its useless nitpicking. HK protests are going for over a year now. They have been largely peaceful with extremely limited amount of (). Pointing to some random stone pelting or couple times when police fired tear gasses to disperse people to avoid a situation potentially turning dangerous isn't violence.

I was hoping that it would be evident that my identifying more than five instances of violence by HK protesters was not meant to be an exhaustive list of instances of violence. The point was to show that it was possible to identify large numbers of specific instances of violence by HK protesters with a minimal amount of effort. Is your claim even falsifiable? How many instances of violence would be sufficient for you? Please don't accuse me of making bad faith arguments.

Pointing to some random stone pelting or couple times when police fired tear gasses to disperse people to avoid a situation potentially turning dangerous isn't violence.

Wait, let's take a closer look at this. Do you consider throwing stones at people and police firing tear gas at people to not be violent acts?

Riots are currently subsection of protests. Peaceful protests are used as cover for the acts by opportunistic individuals and/or groups with some motive or whatever reasons. (lets not go into those details right now) Quelling the protests will stop the riots as well, as they lose their cover they are subject to more police presence, and stricter action. If riots and protests were 2 distinguishable things, I would agree with you. However they are not mutually exclusive.

These are the current stats of HK protests after 18 months.
Deaths - 2
Injuries ~2600+
Arrests ~9000

You are missing the point, violence was there but it was largely limited to few incidents that sparked. It was quickly controlled either by police or by protesters themselves. Pelting stone or tear gassing is obviously violent but subjective. If you are going to claim that police tear gassing to disperse the crowd which was visibly riling up to avoid further confrontations and/or violence then idk what to say.

[fightinfrenchman]

These are the current stats of HK protests after 18 months.
Deaths - 2
Injuries ~2600+
Arrests ~9000

States taken over by totalitarians - 1

[deleted_user]

Just respond to the premises which are already giving some too-gracious benefits of doubt.

[fightinfrenchman]

All vardar can do is attack me personally, he's still totally unable to debunk my theory that the moon is the back of the sun. Suspicious? DOMINATION!

[fightinfrenchman]

Thinking of covering my license plate in duct tape to bait cops into pulling me over ngl

[Vinyanyérë]

Riots are currently subsection of protests. Peaceful protests are used as cover for the acts by opportunistic individuals and/or groups with some motive or whatever reasons. (lets not go into those details right now) Quelling the protests will stop the riots as well, as they lose their cover they are subject to more police presence, and stricter action. If riots and protests were 2 distinguishable things, I would agree with you. However they are not mutually exclusive.

This is not the requested proof of anything that I asked. I did not dispute that stopping the protests would also stop riots.

These are the current stats of HK protests after 18 months.
Deaths - 2
Injuries ~2600+
Arrests ~9000

No meaning can be assigned to these in a vacuum.

You are missing the point, violence was there but it was largely limited to few incidents that sparked. It was quickly controlled either by police or by protesters themselves.

There was organized violence by HK protesters against police. For example (source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/worl ... diers.html):

Hundreds of Hong Kong activists armed with firebombs and bows-and-arrows on Monday battled riot police who have laid a days-long siege to a university, the most violent confrontation yet in a half-year of protests.

Early Monday, the police tried storming the campus at the main entrance and made some arrests. But the occupiers fought back with dozens of firebombs and set barricades ablaze, forcing the police to retreat.

I can provide further examples as needed, but I'll need to again ask what would be required to falsify your claim.

Pelting stone or tear gassing is obviously violent but subjective.

What does this mean? You made the claim "(X) or (Y) isn't violence", I'm asking for clarification on what you consider to be violent acts.

If you are going to claim that police tear gassing to disperse the crowd which was visibly riling up to avoid further confrontations and/or violence then idk what to say.

If I'm going to claim what?

[wardyb1]

Just a few bad apples. Nothing to see here

[XeeleeFlower]

I'm not caught up in this thread, but I just wanted to share this channel again if any of you are currently awake: https://www.twitch.tv/woke

Portland is currently very tense.

[fightinfrenchman]

@XeeleeFlower Might want to check out how many bootlickers are in this thread

[XeeleeFlower]

https://clips.twitch.tv/QuaintCreativeCurrySSSsss

Edit: Need to make it clear that there was no curfew here and people were being peaceful.

[wardyb1]

https://clips.twitch.tv/QuaintCreativeCurrySSSsss

"Land of the Free". Crazy how all the 2A people disappear when there is actual oppression from a government.

[duckzilla]

Then quit saying “fuck the police”

Your words are powerful and the translation to that statement is so wrong. People are throwing that around and it just makes such a hostile environment for many cops who want to do their job. Cops trying to solve a gang murder case but are instead bombarded with “fuck you, pigs” and “I’m not saying shit to you fucking killers.”

The police =/= a single cop.
The slogan "Fuck the police!" is not directed at every single police officer, but at the police system which is accused of institutionalized racism. Of course it makes a hostile environment. On the other hand, why don't good cops en masse quit their job in protest of the brutality of their peers? Why don't the good cops protest at all against an institutional racism?

How is racism still institutionalized? Point that in my direction? Because a number of black men are killed by police, and are incarcerated at a higher rate, means that is racist. Could it? Yes. But I have yet to see that correlation truly connect. I believe the effects of Jim Crow and slavery have created an extreme wealth inequality, education inequality which has thus created the high violence and crime in the black community that keeps them down. Racism no longer holds them down, the effects of racism certainly have. There’s a difference. Why I believe in policies to destroy this cycle like affirmative action and education funds for inner cities.

To think this idea is fascist, racist, or any other term you can come up with: I think is wrong.

You say that racism no longer holds people of color down. What do you think about the central park incident between the two Coopers? Isn't that racism? And don't the consequences of (racist?) behavior like this affect people of color more than whites?

Where do you see racism fade into "the effects of racism"? Doesn't the cycle you portray show that it is precisely the racism of the past which drives today's racism?
Given that the extreme wealth inequality, the resulting lack of education, and increase in crime apparently characterize "the black community", modern day racist prejudices (blacks are criminals) are a result of past racism. I cannot see a big difference here.
The affirmative action and education funds are often used by racists as an official acknowledgment of inferiority, since people of color are "free" today and it cannot be the effects of racism which hold them down today. And affirmative action is inherently racist in itself, because it does not target anyone with a bad social background but only people with a specific background that is often described as "race" in the US. They are now positively discriminated, which they may benefit from. However, the signal is that they are "different" than others, making affirmative action necessary.

I don't see racism go away, because people have difficulties to ignore a person's skin color and everything they instantly believe to know about this person.

[chris1089]

USA is basically responding to protesting the same way China did in Hong Kong before that free city got annexed

And how much looting and rioting did you see in Hong Kong?

[chris1089]

@iNcog in you're sweeping blame of police officers (don't even know how what to say to "except the good ones") you're guilty of the same prejudice you claim is the problem with the US justice system and the police in the first place.

[duckzilla]

Good cops being good.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFr ... ace_after/

[Goodspeed]

can we rename this topic to US Riots May 2020 or something as it is no longer limited to minneapolis @Goodspeed

I'm not the OP
@007Salt

[XeeleeFlower]

https://www.thenation.com/article/activ ... trump-fbi/

[Dolan]

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research- ... sentencing
Also if you wondered what institutional racism looks like. Check this out. Absolutely no explanation for it.

This might actually be explainable by psychological factors. Judges who give black offenders longer sentences might be caused by the judges' perception that those offenders pose a greater danger, whether or not this perception turns out to be empirically accurate. There are some studies that show people have automatic, ie "unconscious", negative reactions to people they perceive to be part of the out-group, while showing more positive reactions to people from their in-group.

The milder sentences given to women is likely to be explained by a different kind of unconscious bias.
It's not necessarily something that people do it as a result of explicit bias or evilness, it can also be at least partly explainable by psychological factors.

[Dolan]

https://www.thenation.com/article/activ ... trump-fbi/

Wait, wtf, they found no antifa involvement at that protest, but the article shows a guy draped in an antifa flag at exactly that same protest?

Later edit: Ah nvm, the pic is from a Boston protest from that same day, while the FBI statement is about a protest in Washington. They ruled this out for a very specific protest, though, not for all of them.

[duckzilla]

https://www.thenation.com/article/activ ... trump-fbi/

Wait, wtf, they found no antifa involvement at that protest, but the article shows a guy draped in an antifa flag at exactly that same protest?

I could be wrong, but cannot everyone buy an antifa flag and go to a protest?
What exactly is antifa anyway? It's not like there was a big organization calling itself antifa and sending its members to loot stores in Minneapolis, if I understand it corrrectly.

[Dolan]

Sure, but then someone could do the same to pretend they're a far right supporter trying to instigate to violence.

[duckzilla]

That's absolutely true as well. However, the source here seems to be the FBI. I can only hope that the FBI actually knows how to identify a far right supporter just as well as an antifa member.

[Dolan]

The FBI made that statement only in relation to a speculation that antifa supporters might have been involved.
They didn't make a broad statement about any involvement from any kind of activist groups.

And the stament was made specifically about that protest from the 31st of May in Washington, not about every protest in every location. Case in point, the article shows someone displaying an antifa flag at a different protest.