US riots

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우슀

Re: Minneapolis riots

Post by n0el »

That might be a good thing
mad cuz bad
User avatar
Great Britain chris1089
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2651
Joined: Feb 11, 2017
ESO: chris1089

Re: Minneapolis riots

Post by chris1089 »

n0el wrote:
Dolan wrote: It's probably not enough to avenge the death of a suspect that resisted arrest because he got caught passing counterfeit money. There needs to be more. What am I saying, the whole world needs to burn for the death of George Floyd. You know, things need to get to the point of civil war and tens of more deaths to maybe come close to being enough.
????
Not familiar with sarcasm?
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우슀

Re: Minneapolis riots

Post by n0el »

chris1089 wrote:
n0el wrote:
Dolan wrote: It's probably not enough to avenge the death of a suspect that resisted arrest because he got caught passing counterfeit money. There needs to be more. What am I saying, the whole world needs to burn for the death of George Floyd. You know, things need to get to the point of civil war and tens of more deaths to maybe come close to being enough.
????
Not familiar with sarcasm?
Dolan has a unique form of posting
mad cuz bad
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Re: Minneapolis riots

Post by princeofcarthage »

Vinyanyérë wrote:
princeofcarthage wrote: If you read carefully I responded to all 3 of them. What you make is a good point and what I hope happens. That is a different thing though. So, you are just reiterating what I said, protesters have no clue exactly what they want, neither they have made any attempt to establish dialogue and/or kick start discussions.
What I said was that there was no universal list of demands made by protesters. There absolutely are protesters that know what they want and there have been attempts to establish dialogue. Can you point to the specific place where you attempted to show that violently suppressing both protests and riots would not have the reverse effect of emboldening both? I will accept for now you have attempted to show that it isn't possible to suppress protests without accompanied riots. As a counter, here's an example: In Redwood City, CA, a protest was conducted for several hours largely without incident (one arrest was made). Part of the reason that there were no major incidents at the protest likely stem from the police presence being mild (there were a few officers present, but their gear was their normal day-to-day gear and they did not form any line) and from city officials taking part in the protest directly. The protest began at 16:00 and ended at 20:30 when a county-wide curfew was put in place. In this way, a protest happened and rioting was violently suppressed (although from what I've seen, no rioting in Redwood City happened anyway).*

*This isn't to say that I'm in favor of the curfew; however, it is an instance of successful suppression of riots without an accompanied suppression of protests.
princeofcarthage wrote: It doesn't matter whether it is tear gas or flash bang, the point matters not the word or weapon used. Throwing a grenade/gas () at person to hurt him and throwing it in air to scare crowd into disbursing is different. The intent obviously matters. I don't remember under what exact conditions but people kill horses to avoid them pain. That doesn't mean violence or make you a violent person. It is an act of mercy.
This ignores the throwing of rocks as an explicit example you gave which has the pretty unambiguous goal of harming someone or causing property damage. With flash bang grenades and tear gas, there's two things going on: first, not all of the grenades and gas are thrown into the air, there are numerous instances of them being thrown at people with the explicit intent of doing exactly what those devices are designed to do. Second, even if they were thrown into the air with the intent of dispersing the crowd by scaring them, the fact that the crowd is scared puts members of it in danger from, for example, trampling.

Finally, there's two levels of intent here. One level is very simplistic: is this act trying to cause harm on someone else? The other is more complex: what is this act trying to do? The latter helps us figure out whether an act is morally justified or not, but the definition you provided is not concerned with that level. It's solely concerned with whether or not there's an intent to cause harm or not, which throwing rocks, stun grenades, and tear gas all unequivocally do. Would you like to use a different definition of violence?
princeofcarthage wrote: [various HK stuff]
So let's zoom out. You claimed that "there was no such thing [as rioting and looting] during HK protests". I responded by pointing out that there was and gave you an example, and you responded by claiming that there were a a small number of these. I gave multiple examples, and you responded by saying that these incidents were isolated in scope and shut down by police or protesters when they appeared. I gave an example of organized violence by protesters against police, and you responded by saying that it was an instance of violence by police against protesters. I pointed out that the example does indeed contain an instance of violence by protesters against police, and you're now saying that the police started it.

Of course the police started it!

I'm not making a claim that the activists in Hong Kong are morally unjustified in being violent towards their police, I'm arguing against the claim that there is no violence at all. That's your original claim.

Even with this, though, I can easily find instances of violent actions taken by HK activists against police and property that other protesters were clearly complicit in. Here's one example (warning: bad takes and Chinese govt. propaganda in the comments):



And just to reiterate, I'm not claiming that anyone in this video is doing anything wrong. I'm just claiming that they're committing violence. The key is that violent acts are not necessarily immoral acts.
Despite telling you not to, you are constantly engaging in nitpicking and bad faith arguments. This is turning out to be a ping pong discussion rather than productive one. For sake of this discussion and my sanity I will in precise point form explain my thoughts below. I expect you to not continue nitpicking and bad faith arguments.

1) Protesters are leaderless and mostly without a demand. Sure, smaller communities might have their list, and few might implement it at local level but broader national level reforms are needed.
2) Congress (from what I read) is already bringing bills to reform.
3) I don't deny protests are a not a bad thing. Riots however are.
4) Rioters, looters, criminals are all opportunistic people who are disguising themselves as protesters. Given the currrent scenario it is not possibly to distinguish Protesters from rioters. Meaning they are not mutually exclusive at this point.
5) My post was intentionally delayed. Between that you can see at least info of 4 deaths on both sides on ESOC and probably more if we scour the media.
6) It is clear that collateral damage in form of life and property is unavoidable at this point.
7) If all the attention is constantly diverted to this, it also possess a far greater risk to security than simply internal riots.
8) Also let us not forget C-19 which alone is a good enough reason for this to end.
9) Difference between HK and these is that there was far less to none collateral damage. Violence was largely limited between protesters and suppressors, which again was largely initiated by suppressors.
10) This also has far reaching effects on security, law and order and what future holds which we haven't but others members in the thread have discussed again and again.
11) Lets also not forget that all this senseless killing and looting is ruining what the main aim for what protests started in first place. There is chance that they maybe forever tainted. I don't know how looting of 200 Apple stores brings justice to Floyd.
12) Given all these circumstances it is absolutely imperative that protests be brought to a swift end until such time when they can be peacefully carried out again.


This is not to say that entire discussion had been ping pong. I agree that violence shown by you in HK is more than I had already known about. However there is a stark difference between violence in US and HK. I am not giving my opinion but violence between people protesting and people who are they protesting against is "..." (I don't know the proper word to use but I hope you get the point).
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
User avatar
Korea South Vinyanyérë
Retired Contributor
Donator 06
Posts: 1839
Joined: Aug 22, 2016
ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
Location: Outer Heaven
Clan: 팀 하우슀

Re: Minneapolis riots

  • Quote

Post by VinyanyĂ©rĂ« »

princeofcarthage wrote: Despite telling you not to, you are constantly engaging in nitpicking and bad faith arguments. This is turning out to be a ping pong discussion rather than productive one. For sake of this discussion and my sanity I will in precise point form explain my thoughts below. I expect you to not continue nitpicking and bad faith arguments.

1) Protesters are leaderless and mostly without a demand. Sure, smaller communities might have their list, and few might implement it at local level but broader national level reforms are needed.
2) Congress (from what I read) is already bringing bills to reform.
3) I don't deny protests are a not a bad thing. Riots however are.
4) Rioters, looters, criminals are all opportunistic people who are disguising themselves as protesters. Given the currrent scenario it is not possibly to distinguish Protesters from rioters. Meaning they are not mutually exclusive at this point.
5) My post was intentionally delayed. Between that you can see at least info of 4 deaths on both sides on ESOC and probably more if we scour the media.
6) It is clear that collateral damage in form of life and property is unavoidable at this point.
7) If all the attention is constantly diverted to this, it also possess a far greater risk to security than simply internal riots.
8) Also let us not forget C-19 which alone is a good enough reason for this to end.
9) Difference between HK and these is that there was far less to none collateral damage. Violence was largely limited between protesters and suppressors, which again was largely initiated by suppressors.
10) This also has far reaching effects on security, law and order and what future holds which we haven't but others members in the thread have discussed again and again.
11) Lets also not forget that all this senseless killing and looting is ruining what the main aim for what protests started in first place. There is chance that they maybe forever tainted. I don't know how looting of 200 Apple stores brings justice to Floyd.
12) Given all these circumstances it is absolutely imperative that protests be brought to a swift end until such time when they can be peacefully carried out again.


This is not to say that entire discussion had been ping pong. I agree that violence shown by you in HK is more than I had already known about. However there is a stark difference between violence in US and HK. I am not giving my opinion but violence between people protesting and people who are they protesting against is "..." (I don't know the proper word to use but I hope you get the point).

So there’s three ongoing threads of discussion that we have:
  • The necessity of suppressing all peaceful protests, riots, and looting in the U.S. vs. alternatives
  • What qualifies as violence
  • The presence of violence in Hong Kong
In each of these three threads I have been attempting to do the following:
  • Determine what claim you are making, get clarification on your statements, and understand the definitions you are using in these claims. AND
  • Provide necessary conditions that you would need to fulfill in order for me to accept your claim, and provide counters when I find your attempts to fulfill those conditions unsatisfactory. OR
  • Determine what necessary conditions that I would need to fulfill in order for you to accept my claim.
I believe that this is fundamentally a good faith and productive form of discussion, and, notably, I don’t think you’ve been satisfactorily working with this. In the first thread, I was able to summarize your claim in this way:
Vinyanyérë wrote: So your claim is that once protests move from a peaceful state to a mix of peaceful protests and rioting, the only way to move them back to a peaceful state is to violently suppress all protests until no more of them happen, and then to allow peaceful protesting again?
You agreed that this was your claim within the context of the current U.S. incidents. That’s good, we established a claim that I was able to clarify and that I also disagreed with. So I gave you three necessary conditions that you would need to demonstrate before I could accept your claim. I gave caveats that these might be necessary and not sufficient and that I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the prescriptive claim (that this should be done) even if it were true, but I gave some things that I would need to see.

In your first response to that, you didn’t provide what I asked, instead opting to provide an unrelated claim. Afterwards, you provided incomplete attempts to demonstrate what I asked for; I offered counters to the points you made and asked for you to complete what I asked for. So far, you have not done so, and so I am not required to accept your claim.


In the second thread, I haven’t been able to figure out what your claim is. You started by saying “P and Q are not violence”, I rejected this, and you said “under this definition of violence, R is violence”. I responded by pointing out that we were discussing the claim “P and Q are not violence” and that under your provided definition R would indeed qualify as violence, and I attempted to ask additional clarification on what you consider to be violence. You then gave “Q and R are not violence because of their intent”, and I responded by pointing out that we’re still discussing P, and that, per the definition you gave, intent as you’re describing it is not a factor, and so Q and R would qualify as violence.

This isn’t an attempt to nitpick, I’ve been trying to figure out what your claim is and arguing how various things qualify as violence under the definition you provided. However, I still have not been able to determine your claim here, as you have multiple times changed the acts that we’re discussing, and seem to be using a different definition of violence than the one that you provided. You aren’t providing sufficient clarity on the terminology or the position you are taking and so I am not required to accept your claim.

In the third thread, you initially took the claim that there was not rioting and looting during the Hong Kong protests and I took the negation. Since then, I have not been able to figure out what your claim is, as, like in the second thread, it seems to have modified over time and as I have provided additional evidence. I have successfully taken the negation of each of your claims by providing evidence. I have multiple times asked you to give me necessary conditions that I need to fulfill for you to accept any of these positions, and you have not done so. Since you have not provided me with a consistent position nor have you given me any reasonable conditions that I need to fulfill, I am not required to accept your claim.

All of the numbered points that you put in your post are not interesting to me because they are tangentially related or not related to the above positions that I am either attempting to show, attempting to get you to show, or attempting to get you to clarify. Please don’t accuse me of nitpicking or making bad faith points, and if you are going to, please provide evidence of that rather than simply saying that it is true.
duck
:mds:
imo
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Minneapolis riots

  • Quote

Post by deleted_user »

Man technical language really sucksh ass
User avatar
Great Britain chris1089
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2651
Joined: Feb 11, 2017
ESO: chris1089

Re: Minneapolis riots

Post by chris1089 »

There is a protest on Sunday in the middle of Suffolk (a rural county) in the UK.
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: Minneapolis riots

Post by oats13 »

chris1089 wrote:There is a protest on Sunday in the middle of Suffolk (a rural county) in the UK.
The Hobbiton resistance will never surrender!
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: Minneapolis riots

Post by iNcog »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
United States of America 007Salt
Dragoon
Posts: 366
Joined: Jun 25, 2019

Re: Minneapolis riots

Post by 007Salt »

Goodspeed wrote:
007Salt wrote:
Show hidden quotes
If that title is more relevant then I'm all for it. I'll let you decide @Goodspeed but I think it is at this point.
It's your thread. The title is yours to choose. I'm not in the business of editing people's posts or titles because there is a chance I'll misrepresent them.
US Riots - Change the title to this
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: US riots

Post by Goodspeed »

Wait, it's not possible to change your own title?
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: US riots

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Goodspeed wrote:Wait, it's not possible to change your own title?
Crooked staff out of touch with the users!
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: US riots

  • Quote

Post by Kaiserklein »

This country is the pinnacle of civilization
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: US riots

Post by iNcog »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
United States of America vardar
Lancer
Posts: 787
Joined: Jul 3, 2015
ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
Location: us of a

Re: US riots

Post by vardar »

@iNcog agreed. Quotas so stupid for police. Like what, firefighters need to have a certain number of fires put out per week too?
c0ns!
User avatar
Netherlands Mr_Bramboy
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 8219
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: [VOC] Bram
Location: Amsterdam

Re: US riots

Post by Mr_Bramboy »

iNcog wrote:Quotas should be removed and made illegal.
What about quotas prescribing a minimum amount of blacks or women within corporate boards?
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: US riots

  • Quote

Post by deleted_user »

They intend and accomplish two different things. Hardly the same.
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: US riots

Post by Kaiserklein »

Yeah man this is such a poor comparison...
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
United States of America vardar
Lancer
Posts: 787
Joined: Jul 3, 2015
ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
Location: us of a

Re: US riots

  • Quote

Post by vardar »

Quotas for the sake of diversity lol
c0ns!
User avatar
United States of America vardar
Lancer
Posts: 787
Joined: Jul 3, 2015
ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
Location: us of a

Re: US riots

Post by vardar »

Less women in STEM fields, put more in!

Less men in healthcare, put more in!

Not enough women CEO’s, put more in!

Not enough women construction workers, put more in!

Not enough young senators, put more in!
c0ns!
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: US riots

Post by iNcog »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Gendarme
Posts: 5996
Joined: Jun 4, 2019

Re: US riots

Post by RefluxSemantic »

Quotas like that have such a sad side-effect of being the most hardcore form of discrimination possible on the short term. I have a friend who finished two master degrees and did a pretty good job there, was doing an internship at this company and doing a good job there. I asked him if he thought they would hire him. He answered me that he thought it was really unlikely, because they were looking for either minorities or women. I get that the quota is supposed to counteract some bad things, but my friend is getting discriminated so fucking hard here.

And yes, I know that minorities face this sort of discrimination permanently, but that sort of discrimination isn't part of the law.
User avatar
United States of America vardar
Lancer
Posts: 787
Joined: Jul 3, 2015
ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
Location: us of a

Re: US riots

  • Quote

Post by vardar »

Lmao bigotry. I agree with not getting sidetracked here. Give me a break with bigotry though. I don’t give a shit about quotas and that’s bigotry?

K, done with this. But throwing out shit like that is just stupid. “Bigot” “fascist” “racist” don’t even mean anything now. They are so loose

And I like educational quotas to an extent. No problem there.
c0ns!
User avatar
United States of America vardar
Lancer
Posts: 787
Joined: Jul 3, 2015
ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
Location: us of a

Re: US riots

  • Quote

Post by vardar »

Oh you don’t like high taxes? Bigot!

You don’t like quotas? Bigot!

You think military spending is crucial? Bigot!

You think oranges are better than apples? Bigot!
c0ns!
User avatar
Great Britain chris1089
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2651
Joined: Feb 11, 2017
ESO: chris1089

Re: US riots

Post by chris1089 »

Unfortunately even educational quotas are bad. It hurts the people it's supposed to help. 80% percentile students end up at 90% colleges, etc so they targeted group ends up struggling more than if they had gone to a college targeted at their level.
It doesn't help the student if they go to Cambridge or Harvard when they can't keep up.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV