Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Baltimore Riots

ConnorSween16
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.
The way is looks from my perspective, is people are using the death of 25 year old Freddie Grey, to loot and pillage stores. They are using this horrible incident as a means for upheaval. Is what he officers of Baltimore wrong? Absolutely. But the people of Baltimore punishing officers and National Guard for the actions of a few corrupt cops, is also wrong. Not to mention, the cops and National Guard is there to stop them from BURNING THEIR CITY DOWN. Literally. I just read on the Boston Globe, that people seriously CUT HOLES IN THE FIREHOSES. From what it seems, people are TRYING to hurt other people and destroy their community. I don't see this as justice. Protesting, i believe in 100%, but riots and burning your own city down? Where is the justice

What do you guys think
ConnorSween16
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 9:52:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hoodlums will look for any excuse to act like hoodlums.
It has nothing to do with race, or socio-economical issues, those are incidental.
This is certainly not the first, and far from the last.

It has happened after sporting events, which is even more bewildering to me. Mob mentality.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 10:45:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM, ConnorSween16 wrote:
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.
The way is looks from my perspective, is people are using the death of 25 year old Freddie Grey, to loot and pillage stores. They are using this horrible incident as a means for upheaval. Is what he officers of Baltimore wrong? Absolutely. But the people of Baltimore punishing officers and National Guard for the actions of a few corrupt cops, is also wrong. Not to mention, the cops and National Guard is there to stop them from BURNING THEIR CITY DOWN. Literally. I just read on the Boston Globe, that people seriously CUT HOLES IN THE FIREHOSES. From what it seems, people are TRYING to hurt other people and destroy their community. I don't see this as justice. Protesting, i believe in 100%, but riots and burning your own city down? Where is the justice

What do you guys think

Rioting is not an act that stems from logic and reason; it comes from a place of very intense emotion. In this case, it is anger over a long-standing social injustice. It is not just one event; the single event you mention is just the spark that touches off the powder keg, so to speak.

People need to be very careful about oversimplifying and being dismissive of the psychology behind rioting:

https://www.psychologytoday.com...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 12:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM, ConnorSween16 wrote:
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.

There isn't a civil war going on. So, this point of yours fails.

The way is looks from my perspective, is people are using the death of 25 year old Freddie Grey, to loot and pillage stores.

Then you have a profoundly myopic view of what's taking place here. Grey's death was more like the "straw that broke the camel's back."

From what it seems, people are TRYING to hurt other people and destroy their community. I don't see this as justice. Protesting, i believe in 100%, but riots and burning your own city down? Where is the justice

What do you guys think

What I'm about to say is very controversial. So, there's the disclaimer.

Baltimore is, from what I understand, a very complicated place. On the one hand you have very wealthy people from a class of both old and new money, who live in very close proximity to extremely poor people who live in projects and who cannot break out of cyclical poverty.

Baltimore is a place of excellent opportunity for some; a place of cultural and societal stagnation for others. Both groups are aware of the other's experience, more or less. That creates some problems.

There is a deeply rooted prejudice against the police in Baltimore, and so when officials in their capacity as officials (specifically police officials) fail to explain very public and outrageous incidents, Baltimore's black community sees that as continuity of a long train of institutional and systematic abuse at their expense -and with some merit.

These are, in general, people who don't really have any belief in the power to redress their political problems by political means. Keep that in mind, while I tell you this next part...

Outsiders see riots and police cars on fire with teenagers jumping on burning paddy wagons. That is a very powerful image, which makes people jump to judgements. Baltimore right now looks eerily similar to LA when its race riots were going on. It looks similar to Ferguson (even though Baltimore is not really like Ferguson, for a number of reasons that aren't really important to talk about here).

So, at once, there are two powerful forces bucking against one another: a minority group of people who are economically, politically and culturally disenfranchised who feels a loss of one as a loss to the group, going against another group of people who are at least in theory charged with maintaining law and order. Both groups are deeply suspicious of the other.

That's the problem... onto the riots.

The riots are happening BECAUSE poor black people in Baltimore feel like they have no political power; maybe they could, maybe they couldn't... but this is their way to effectuate change. While I do not endorse what's going on, and what they're doing, I understand it, and I am sympathetic to the reasons why they're doing what they're doing.

The other thing to consider is that MOST of what's happening is peaceful protesting, and not rioting. But, peaceful protests really get ignored by the media when there are images to be captured of rambunctious Black youths jumping up and down on burning police cars. The latter makes for higher ratings, the former is boring.

But, in reality, all of this is boring because it's not going to solve the problem. This is, before anything else, an issue for the NAACP and the ACLU. But, condemning the rioters is specious and disingenuous. If you were in their situation, and you had lived the life that they did, you would ***very likely*** be doing the exact same thing.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 12:48:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 9:52:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Hoodlums will look for any excuse to act like hoodlums.
It has nothing to do with race, or socio-economical issues, those are incidental.
This is certainly not the first, and far from the last.

It has happened after sporting events, which is even more bewildering to me. Mob mentality.

I think your view here reflects a kind of prejudice that is at once deeply disconcerting but exceedingly common, and it stems from a demonstrable lack of empathy with people who are doing things you don't like because you don't understand them and you never aspired to try to understand them. Rather, you heard about something on the news and you formed a snap judgement on the basis of the deeply ingrained prejudices that you hold whether you realize them or not.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 12:50:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The thing that people have to understand about riots is that they are not the worst thing ever to happen. They're just not. It's chaotic and that's disconcerting, but what's at stake here are the rights of any individual member of a disenfranchised group.

Most of us here have no idea what that's like, and that's something to keep in mind when you're trying to understand what's happening here.

(That said, the older I become, the more liberal I get.)
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 12:57:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 12:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:
The thing that people have to understand about riots is that they are not the worst thing ever to happen. They're just not. It's chaotic and that's disconcerting, but what's at stake here are the rights of any individual member of a disenfranchised group.

Most of us here have no idea what that's like, and that's something to keep in mind when you're trying to understand what's happening here.

(That said, the older I become, the more liberal I get.)

What I find problematic is the rioting. It is organic, and that is fine. However, it is also opportunistic. Regardless, the biggest issue is that it is unfocused.

Being pissed at the police is one thing, but looting/damaging a storefront is, frankly, reconfirming the stereotype, and does no one any favors. Now, are the looters the rioters/protesters? Probably not, as I doubt they really care what the issue is. But if they did, they are hurting their own cause.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:02:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 12:57:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/28/2015 12:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:
The thing that people have to understand about riots is that they are not the worst thing ever to happen. They're just not. It's chaotic and that's disconcerting, but what's at stake here are the rights of any individual member of a disenfranchised group.

Most of us here have no idea what that's like, and that's something to keep in mind when you're trying to understand what's happening here.

(That said, the older I become, the more liberal I get.)

What I find problematic is the rioting. It is organic, and that is fine. However, it is also opportunistic. Regardless, the biggest issue is that it is unfocused.

Opportunistic is an adjective that carries a lot of connotative problems which don't really sufficiently or accurately capture what's going on. To say that the rioters and/or protesters are being opportunistic is to both condemn their actions and implicitly to contemn their cause. That's not really fair, because they aren't taking advantage of a bad situation as the word "opportunistic" would connote. They're reacting and responding to a real, meaningful, and existing provocation. That's not opportunistic.

Being pissed at the police is one thing, but looting/damaging a storefront is, frankly, reconfirming the stereotype, and does no one any favors. Now, are the looters the rioters/protesters? Probably not, as I doubt they really care what the issue is. But if they did, they are hurting their own cause.

Rioting isn't the end here, Khaos. It's the means. The end is to draw attention to the fact that here, something very bad has happened, and the community which is doing the rioting is at a breaking point.

But, I agree that rioting is a very bad means to achieve any result.
Tsar of DDO
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:31:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 12:48:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 9:52:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Hoodlums will look for any excuse to act like hoodlums.
It has nothing to do with race, or socio-economical issues, those are incidental.
This is certainly not the first, and far from the last.

It has happened after sporting events, which is even more bewildering to me. Mob mentality.

I think your view here reflects a kind of prejudice that is at once deeply disconcerting but exceedingly common, and it stems from a demonstrable lack of empathy with people who are doing things you don't like because you don't understand them and you never aspired to try to understand them. Rather, you heard about something on the news and you formed a snap judgement on the basis of the deeply ingrained prejudices that you hold whether you realize them or not.
And I think your response reflects a kind of prejudice, against people who do not like rioters.
I am sorry that it offends you that I recognize that college students, from middle and upper middle class families riot at the results of sporting events, sometimes when they lose, sometimes when they win.
I am sorry my snap judgments resulting from 40+ years of observing are not sufficient to make judgments concerning the illegal activities of rioters. Should I withhold judgment until I have over 50 years experience?
Maybe I could use your experience as a baseline. How many years have you been reading and seeing accounts of mob riots?

I am familiar with peaceful demonstrations, and violent demonstration, and from my observations the difference seems to be a group who controls the masses. I have identified with the peaceful ones.
What would you say are the reasons why if one sports team wins a championship and has peaceful celebrating, while in another city there is violence and destruction, for winning a similar championship? Is it the unemployment rate in the respective cities?

As for showing empathy, I choose to have the empathy for the home owners, and business owners and employees. Those who destroy the lives of those individuals, not so much.

It is difficult to have empathy for rioters who are not in their own cities, but travel across state lines to cause destruction.
I would think they would be more concerned about improving conditions in their own area, but apparently they think they will be ore productive by burning down a business in another town.
In the case of college students they seem to prefer starting bonfires, and overturning municipal and private vehicles. Tearing down street lights and signs also seems to be a fun way to celebrate a championship win.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:41:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:02:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 12:57:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/28/2015 12:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:
The thing that people have to understand about riots is that they are not the worst thing ever to happen. They're just not. It's chaotic and that's disconcerting, but what's at stake here are the rights of any individual member of a disenfranchised group.

Most of us here have no idea what that's like, and that's something to keep in mind when you're trying to understand what's happening here.

(That said, the older I become, the more liberal I get.)

What I find problematic is the rioting. It is organic, and that is fine. However, it is also opportunistic. Regardless, the biggest issue is that it is unfocused.

Opportunistic is an adjective that carries a lot of connotative problems which don't really sufficiently or accurately capture what's going on. To say that the rioters and/or protesters are being opportunistic is to both condemn their actions and implicitly to contemn their cause. That's not really fair, because they aren't taking advantage of a bad situation as the word "opportunistic" would connote. They're reacting and responding to a real, meaningful, and existing provocation. That's not opportunistic.

Being pissed at the police is one thing, but looting/damaging a storefront is, frankly, reconfirming the stereotype, and does no one any favors. Now, are the looters the rioters/protesters? Probably not, as I doubt they really care what the issue is. But if they did, they are hurting their own cause.

Rioting isn't the end here, Khaos. It's the means. The end is to draw attention to the fact that here, something very bad has happened, and the community which is doing the rioting is at a breaking point.

But, I agree that rioting is a very bad means to achieve any result.

I'm not sure how you meant bad, YYW, but Khaos clearly thinks that these folks are hurting their cause. While I agree with condemnation of violence, and am against it, I think it's a bit off to claim it's a bad means to achieve results.

These people feel they are disenfranchised and powerless. While, perhaps, their view is at least slightly mistaken, it is true that when bad things happen to poor/minorities, they get swept under the proverbial rug. It's often said that a dozen black kids can go missing and nothing will happen, but as soon as one white kid goes missing, there's a task force.

Peaceful protests, as everyone knows, rarely gets the media coverage that exciting, violent protest gets. Is the violence essentially arbitrary or opportunistic? Probably. But is that violence the reason we're still talking about Baltimore? I honestly think so.

Again, there are better ways to further the discussion. It should be remembered, however, that those ways require far more skill to pull off; they require leaders, and organization.

Riots, which require none of these, DO seem to have an effect. And I don't think it actually hurts the cause, as a general rule, given the state of the cause when they happen. As Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:42:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
#BaltimoreFest2015
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
discontent
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 2:09:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
When you loot a store during a riot you either feel you have an opportunity to get something you don't have or can't afford, or you feel like some sort of retribution is entitled to you or your just a thug to add to the mayhem. Why it happens is not a mystery. If time is revel ant this country still has a long way to go when it comes to inequality. Too many rednecks, too many thugs, too many who just don't give a s@#$. As a race we need to rethink what free will is and not what we want it to be on an individual bases. The positive evolution of the race is what's important. That we all have what we need to appreciate what mother earth has to offer.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 2:20:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:41:39 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:02:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 12:57:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/28/2015 12:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:
The thing that people have to understand about riots is that they are not the worst thing ever to happen. They're just not. It's chaotic and that's disconcerting, but what's at stake here are the rights of any individual member of a disenfranchised group.

Most of us here have no idea what that's like, and that's something to keep in mind when you're trying to understand what's happening here.

(That said, the older I become, the more liberal I get.)

What I find problematic is the rioting. It is organic, and that is fine. However, it is also opportunistic. Regardless, the biggest issue is that it is unfocused.

Opportunistic is an adjective that carries a lot of connotative problems which don't really sufficiently or accurately capture what's going on. To say that the rioters and/or protesters are being opportunistic is to both condemn their actions and implicitly to contemn their cause. That's not really fair, because they aren't taking advantage of a bad situation as the word "opportunistic" would connote. They're reacting and responding to a real, meaningful, and existing provocation. That's not opportunistic.

Being pissed at the police is one thing, but looting/damaging a storefront is, frankly, reconfirming the stereotype, and does no one any favors. Now, are the looters the rioters/protesters? Probably not, as I doubt they really care what the issue is. But if they did, they are hurting their own cause.

Rioting isn't the end here, Khaos. It's the means. The end is to draw attention to the fact that here, something very bad has happened, and the community which is doing the rioting is at a breaking point.

But, I agree that rioting is a very bad means to achieve any result.

I'm not sure how you meant bad, YYW, but Khaos clearly thinks that these folks are hurting their cause. While I agree with condemnation of violence, and am against it, I think it's a bit off to claim it's a bad means to achieve results.

By "bad" I meant "counterproductive" or "ineffective." Read: not conducive to binging about meaningful change.

It's "bad" in the sense that when people riot, rioters are judged and their crie de couer is ignored. The conversation becomes one of "how bad rioting and looting is" and not one of "Baltimore's police have got to change, now."

These people feel they are disenfranchised and powerless. While, perhaps, their view is at least slightly mistaken, it is true that when bad things happen to poor/minorities, they get swept under the proverbial rug. It's often said that a dozen black kids can go missing and nothing will happen, but as soon as one white kid goes missing, there's a task force.

Peaceful protests, as everyone knows, rarely gets the media coverage that exciting, violent protest gets. Is the violence essentially arbitrary or opportunistic? Probably. But is that violence the reason we're still talking about Baltimore? I honestly think so.

Again, there are better ways to further the discussion. It should be remembered, however, that those ways require far more skill to pull off; they require leaders, and organization.

Riots, which require none of these, DO seem to have an effect. And I don't think it actually hurts the cause, as a general rule, given the state of the cause when they happen. As Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

Rioting isn't going to solve their problems. I think your points are well articulated, but for change to come about, this is a problem for the NAACP and the ACLU.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 2:23:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:31:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
As for showing empathy, I choose to have the empathy for the home owners, and business owners and employees. Those who destroy the lives of those individuals, not so much.

And this is the root of the issue. It's that you care more about property than rights. I care more about rights than property.

Property is not sacred. It's insurable, repairable and replaceable.
Tsar of DDO
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 2:29:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:23:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:31:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
As for showing empathy, I choose to have the empathy for the home owners, and business owners and employees. Those who destroy the lives of those individuals, not so much.

And this is the root of the issue. It's that you care more about property than rights. I care more about rights than property.

Property is not sacred. It's insurable, repairable and replaceable.
Excuse me?????
The people who own that property have rights.
Yes, you have identified our disagreement.
Rioters "destroy the lives of individuals" - and that is no concern of yours.
I respect the rights of law abiding citizens, you respect the rights of law breakers, above the law abiders.
Thanks for clearing that up.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 2:57:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:20:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:41:39 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:02:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 12:57:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/28/2015 12:50:51 PM, YYW wrote:
The thing that people have to understand about riots is that they are not the worst thing ever to happen. They're just not. It's chaotic and that's disconcerting, but what's at stake here are the rights of any individual member of a disenfranchised group.

Most of us here have no idea what that's like, and that's something to keep in mind when you're trying to understand what's happening here.

(That said, the older I become, the more liberal I get.)

What I find problematic is the rioting. It is organic, and that is fine. However, it is also opportunistic. Regardless, the biggest issue is that it is unfocused.

Opportunistic is an adjective that carries a lot of connotative problems which don't really sufficiently or accurately capture what's going on. To say that the rioters and/or protesters are being opportunistic is to both condemn their actions and implicitly to contemn their cause. That's not really fair, because they aren't taking advantage of a bad situation as the word "opportunistic" would connote. They're reacting and responding to a real, meaningful, and existing provocation. That's not opportunistic.

Being pissed at the police is one thing, but looting/damaging a storefront is, frankly, reconfirming the stereotype, and does no one any favors. Now, are the looters the rioters/protesters? Probably not, as I doubt they really care what the issue is. But if they did, they are hurting their own cause.

Rioting isn't the end here, Khaos. It's the means. The end is to draw attention to the fact that here, something very bad has happened, and the community which is doing the rioting is at a breaking point.

But, I agree that rioting is a very bad means to achieve any result.

I'm not sure how you meant bad, YYW, but Khaos clearly thinks that these folks are hurting their cause. While I agree with condemnation of violence, and am against it, I think it's a bit off to claim it's a bad means to achieve results.

By "bad" I meant "counterproductive" or "ineffective." Read: not conducive to binging about meaningful change.

Okay. I just didn't want to assume, since you could have just meant "bad" as in bad action. Assassination is generally considered "bad", but it is of course QUITE effective at regime change, given that regimes are usually headed by an individual, so even if you wind up with an identical regime, it's changed. Anywhoo, long-winded pedantry over given that I get it now.

It's "bad" in the sense that when people riot, rioters are judged and their crie de couer is ignored. The conversation becomes one of "how bad rioting and looting is" and not one of "Baltimore's police have got to change, now."

But I would argue that the majority of people dismissing them for being rioters would have dismissed them ANYWAY, and those of us who only ignore because we aren't aware are capable of looking at the nuance, don't you think?

These people feel they are disenfranchised and powerless. While, perhaps, their view is at least slightly mistaken, it is true that when bad things happen to poor/minorities, they get swept under the proverbial rug. It's often said that a dozen black kids can go missing and nothing will happen, but as soon as one white kid goes missing, there's a task force.

Peaceful protests, as everyone knows, rarely gets the media coverage that exciting, violent protest gets. Is the violence essentially arbitrary or opportunistic? Probably. But is that violence the reason we're still talking about Baltimore? I honestly think so.

Again, there are better ways to further the discussion. It should be remembered, however, that those ways require far more skill to pull off; they require leaders, and organization.

Riots, which require none of these, DO seem to have an effect. And I don't think it actually hurts the cause, as a general rule, given the state of the cause when they happen. As Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

Rioting isn't going to solve their problems. I think your points are well articulated, but for change to come about, this is a problem for the NAACP and the ACLU.

I would wager that the recent national unrest is going to speed implementation of body cameras, which (implemented with any degree of competence) will dramatically help the way police and the public interact both in preventing bad things, and in ensuring the truth, and therefore justice, win out. It's, frankly, atrocious that we haven't implemented this simple method when we've militarized our police to the extent we have.

That said, sure, the ACLU and the NAACP would be better avenues, but the wheels of justice grind slowly, and have setbacks, and require skill. Rioting ALSO gets response--the instant response is overwhelmingly negative, but at least there's attention on the issue--and don't need money, or skill; and the setbacks are directly attributable to the fact that we are, after all, talking about riots--it doesn't "feel" as bad when to folks that their issues aren't resolved quickly, since they recognize the negative attributes that rioting brings. I'm old, and reminded of the song April 29,1992 by Sublime.

I think the handwringing on rioting's ineffectiveness (not that you're handwringing, I'm just speaking generally) often ignores that rioting DOES work, just not as well as other options that, for one reason or another, may not feel "good" to the rioters. The NAACP and the ACLU exist now, and have not served to solve the problem. We remember Rodney King largely BECAUSE of the riots, not because of the efforts of groups like those. As Wikipedia notes:

"After the riots subsided, there were significant consequences in the Los Angeles Police Department and city government: an increase in hiring of minority officers, analysis of excessive force, resignation of the police chief, loss of support for the Mayor of Los Angeles, and analysis of the general political and economic atmosphere that contributed to the riots.

So while it's true, that putting their efforts into supporting those groups might help, it's also true that from their perspective the groups are ineffective at getting the change, and that the effectiveness these groups DO get is generally incremental. And remember that these groups get resistance, too--the ACLU gets a whole lot of "They're not about rights, they're about douchebags and criminals and screw 'em", which isn't drastically different than "This riot isn't about rights, it's about douchebags and criminals and screw 'em".

What would really stop rioting, I think, is if we actually talked early and often about problems like this. If we really dug into the systems regularly, and if voices got heard, and if people actually understood the systems that they live in--which they really don't.
Of course, that's largely a pipe-dream.

I listened to a good series on This American Life about cops and their interactions with the public, and one of the parts that really stuck out was where the producers followed the cops on a shots fired incident (no fatalities, not an officer-involved shooting). They interviewed the victims, who felt they'd been ignored, even though it was really obvious from the reporting why the cops had acted like they did.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 2:57:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:29:36 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/28/2015 2:23:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:31:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
As for showing empathy, I choose to have the empathy for the home owners, and business owners and employees. Those who destroy the lives of those individuals, not so much.

And this is the root of the issue. It's that you care more about property than rights. I care more about rights than property.

Property is not sacred. It's insurable, repairable and replaceable.
Excuse me?????
The people who own that property have rights.
Yes, you have identified our disagreement.
Rioters "destroy the lives of individuals" - and that is no concern of yours.
I respect the rights of law abiding citizens, you respect the rights of law breakers, above the law abiders.
Thanks for clearing that up.

You put a whole different argument in his mouth.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 2:58:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:29:36 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/28/2015 2:23:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:31:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
As for showing empathy, I choose to have the empathy for the home owners, and business owners and employees. Those who destroy the lives of those individuals, not so much.

And this is the root of the issue. It's that you care more about property than rights. I care more about rights than property.

Property is not sacred. It's insurable, repairable and replaceable.
Excuse me?????
The people who own that property have rights.
Yes, you have identified our disagreement.
Rioters "destroy the lives of individuals" - and that is no concern of yours.
I respect the rights of law abiding citizens, you respect the rights of law breakers, above the law abiders.
Thanks for clearing that up.

What's more important, though: Lives lost through inappropriate police action (or at least, answering the question of whether it's inappropriate), or property lost through riots that occur in response?

What should the focus be on?

I wager YYW would agree with my own position, that the riots are a Bad Thing, but that if the police are killing people, that's a Worse Thing, and we should focus far more on the latter than the former.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 3:12:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:57:09 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Okay. I just didn't want to assume, since you could have just meant "bad" as in bad action. Assassination is generally considered "bad", but it is of course QUITE effective at regime change, given that regimes are usually headed by an individual, so even if you wind up with an identical regime, it's changed. Anywhoo, long-winded pedantry over given that I get it now.

Actually, assassination is one of the worst ways to bring about regime change because it doesn't change a political culture. It just removes one dude from office in a way that sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

But I would argue that the majority of people dismissing them for being rioters would have dismissed them ANYWAY, and those of us who only ignore because we aren't aware are capable of looking at the nuance, don't you think?

There is no nuance in the American media... so I guess.

I would wager that the recent national unrest is going to speed implementation of body cameras, which (implemented with any degree of competence) will dramatically help the way police and the public interact both in preventing bad things, and in ensuring the truth, and therefore justice, win out. It's, frankly, atrocious that we haven't implemented this simple method when we've militarized our police to the extent we have.

I don't think so, and I also don't think body cameras are the answer to the problem.

That said, sure, the ACLU and the NAACP would be better avenues, but the wheels of justice grind slowly, and have setbacks, and require skill. Rioting ALSO gets response--the instant response is overwhelmingly negative, but at least there's attention on the issue--and don't need money, or skill; and the setbacks are directly attributable to the fact that we are, after all, talking about riots--it doesn't "feel" as bad when to folks that their issues aren't resolved quickly, since they recognize the negative attributes that rioting brings. I'm old, and reminded of the song April 29,1992 by Sublime.

I think the handwringing on rioting's ineffectiveness (not that you're handwringing, I'm just speaking generally) often ignores that rioting DOES work, just not as well as other options that, for one reason or another, may not feel "good" to the rioters. The NAACP and the ACLU exist now, and have not served to solve the problem. We remember Rodney King largely BECAUSE of the riots, not because of the efforts of groups like those. As Wikipedia notes:

"After the riots subsided, there were significant consequences in the Los Angeles Police Department and city government: an increase in hiring of minority officers, analysis of excessive force, resignation of the police chief, loss of support for the Mayor of Los Angeles, and analysis of the general political and economic atmosphere that contributed to the riots.

So while it's true, that putting their efforts into supporting those groups might help, it's also true that from their perspective the groups are ineffective at getting the change, and that the effectiveness these groups DO get is generally incremental. And remember that these groups get resistance, too--the ACLU gets a whole lot of "They're not about rights, they're about douchebags and criminals and screw 'em", which isn't drastically different than "This riot isn't about rights, it's about douchebags and criminals and screw 'em".

What would really stop rioting, I think, is if we actually talked early and often about problems like this. If we really dug into the systems regularly, and if voices got heard, and if people actually understood the systems that they live in--which they really don't.
Of course, that's largely a pipe-dream.

I listened to a good series on This American Life about cops and their interactions with the public, and one of the parts that really stuck out was where the producers followed the cops on a shots fired incident (no fatalities, not an officer-involved shooting). They interviewed the victims, who felt they'd been ignored, even though it was really obvious from the reporting why the cops had acted like they did.
Tsar of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 3:14:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM, ConnorSween16 wrote:
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.

A question to you and anyone else: why SHOULDN'T we start "a second Civil War" over this long standing issue of police brutality (and all the other types of discrimination that are compounded upon this)? We've been asking nicely for decades and decades and still the powers at be won't budge or just make small concessions - what else are we supposed to do?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 3:17:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:58:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/28/2015 2:29:36 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/28/2015 2:23:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:31:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
As for showing empathy, I choose to have the empathy for the home owners, and business owners and employees. Those who destroy the lives of those individuals, not so much.

And this is the root of the issue. It's that you care more about property than rights. I care more about rights than property.

Property is not sacred. It's insurable, repairable and replaceable.
Excuse me?????
The people who own that property have rights.
Yes, you have identified our disagreement.
Rioters "destroy the lives of individuals" - and that is no concern of yours.
I respect the rights of law abiding citizens, you respect the rights of law breakers, above the law abiders.
Thanks for clearing that up.

What's more important, though: Lives lost through inappropriate police action (or at least, answering the question of whether it's inappropriate), or property lost through riots that occur in response?

What should the focus be on?

I wager YYW would agree with my own position, that the riots are a Bad Thing, but that if the police are killing people, that's a Worse Thing, and we should focus far more on the latter than the former.

I will post a more substantive response to this and the remainder of your post in response to me, later this evening. I'm at the "afternoon low" though right now.... very tired.
Tsar of DDO
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 3:56:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:58:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/28/2015 2:29:36 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/28/2015 2:23:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:31:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
As for showing empathy, I choose to have the empathy for the home owners, and business owners and employees. Those who destroy the lives of those individuals, not so much.

And this is the root of the issue. It's that you care more about property than rights. I care more about rights than property.

Property is not sacred. It's insurable, repairable and replaceable.
Excuse me?????
The people who own that property have rights.
Yes, you have identified our disagreement.
Rioters "destroy the lives of individuals" - and that is no concern of yours.
I respect the rights of law abiding citizens, you respect the rights of law breakers, above the law abiders.
Thanks for clearing that up.

What's more important, though: Lives lost through inappropriate police action (or at least, answering the question of whether it's inappropriate), or property lost through riots that occur in response?

What should the focus be on?

I wager YYW would agree with my own position, that the riots are a Bad Thing, but that if the police are killing people, that's a Worse Thing, and we should focus far more on the latter than the former.
As should be obvious from my first post in this thread, I made a comment about riots, in general.
They are not always over racial divides.
They are not always because of socio-economic isssues.
They are, virtually always (not 100%) because some hoodlums control mobs, and incite violence and destruction.

You want to zero in on this one particular set of circumstances. Fine, that is more in line with the OP, nothing unreasonable about it, so lets look at it.
It is about race, and some people are making it about socio-economic issues.
The death that caused this was not about poverty, in any way I can see.
The events leading up to it, may have been. The anger, would seem to be about death, but some want to take it on themselves to make it about poverty.

What is poverty? A lack of material goods. None of those people are starving, unless it is because of addictions issues they ignore. None are dying from exposure. A few years ago there was a case of a child who lacked dental care, and died. The mother moved without reporting, her Medicaid closed, and it was the fault of social services, as they lost a law suit, that said it was their fault. However, Maryland has one of the most comprehensive Medicaid plans in all the states. If they lack health care, it is not because they do not have health coverage. They get food provided in multiple ways, not just food stamps, there are no work requirements.
So this poverty issue is a non-issue in my book.
They are poor, their minimal needs are provided for, no work required.
What are material goods? some would say a house of building, nothing, compared to human life. What are creature comforts? Nothing, compared to human life. So this 'they were poor', they were socio-economically disadvantaged, is nothing, no reason to riot, and take other people's property.

Baltimore social service (welfare) offices are staffed at about 50%. Entry level jobs require a H.S. diploma, or GED, and with two years experience that clerical person can have one of those good government jobs that normally requires a college degree.
These jobs go unfilled, with record high welfare rolls. More people than ever getting welfare benefits, and they will not take these jobs at welfare offices, that they are qualified for. Now I readily admit that this is only a few hundred jobs, and that will not cure the problem, but it would be a start, wouldn't you agree.
The jobs are there, money is available for payroll, but go unfilled.
Do you think maybe this contributes to the socio-economic problems? I do.
It is one thing to say, there are not enough jobs, but it is not like there are no job openings, for those great government jobs.

So work was shipped to the rural counties, where staffing was at 80%. Those workers were offered overtime pay, to do the work for other counties.
In those counties that were grossly understaffed, workers had 500 hours of vacation time on the books, but vacation was refused, because work wasn't getting done. Employees who had worked for fifteen years, and earned vacation, could not take it, because they had to approve benefits for people who refused work in their building.

So by my reckoning, this 'they lacked economic opportunity' is a non-issue.
If 200 positions in welfare offices went unfilled, while welfare people received benefits with no work requirements, something more is wrong than just economic opportunity.

The death of a relatively innocent young man, is an issue.
Someone should pay, and not just one or two police officers.
Not home owners, business owners, or employees.
I would expect that relatives of that young man are now out of work, because of the actions of the rioters. Has that been mentioned by the de3fenders of the rioters?

The death of ten young men is not justification for the riots that have occurred.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 5:57:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What else is there to do?

For 500+ years we've asked to be treated as equals. And for 500+ years our pleads have been ignored.

White school shooters who are armed to the teeth are arrested and put in handcuffs unless they kill themselves. Hell last year one school shooter, a repugnant fellow who told the families of his victims that he masturbates to the memory of his crimes, he escaped from prison and yet again was peacefully arrested.

And Ethan Couch. That's all I'm going to say. Ethan fcking Couch.

Yet unarmed black people are shot to death in the streets and we're supposed to pretend everything is OK?

Baltimore burns because its the only way you'll hear us.
#BlackLivesMatter
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 6:18:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 3:14:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM, ConnorSween16 wrote:
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.

A question to you and anyone else: why SHOULDN'T we start "a second Civil War" over this long standing issue of police brutality (and all the other types of discrimination that are compounded upon this)? We've been asking nicely for decades and decades and still the powers at be won't budge or just make small concessions - what else are we supposed to do?

What?? Police brutality is rare. It is a very minor issue. The only reason it seems like an epidemic is because the media blows up every time a black person is shot. I can pull out some stats that prove how rare it is if you want.
ConnorSween16
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:10:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 3:14:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM, ConnorSween16 wrote:
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.

A question to you and anyone else: why SHOULDN'T we start "a second Civil War" over this long standing issue of police brutality (and all the other types of discrimination that are compounded upon this)? We've been asking nicely for decades and decades and still the powers at be won't budge or just make small concessions - what else are we supposed to do?


WHY SHOULDNT WE START A SECOND WORLD WAR? Are you serious? Have you read a history textbook? I understand there is still conflict over race, but a nation fighting against itself is just dumb. There's no reason. We are making process. This is not a hate crime, or even racially related. It was black cops who arrested him for gods sake.
ConnorSween16
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:47:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 6:18:18 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:14:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM, ConnorSween16 wrote:
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.

A question to you and anyone else: why SHOULDN'T we start "a second Civil War" over this long standing issue of police brutality (and all the other types of discrimination that are compounded upon this)? We've been asking nicely for decades and decades and still the powers at be won't budge or just make small concessions - what else are we supposed to do?

What?? Police brutality is rare. It is a very minor issue. The only reason it seems like an epidemic is because the media blows up every time a black person is shot. I can pull out some stats that prove how rare it is if you want.

You really think all police brutality cases are reported? Have you grown up in a 'hood?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 8:04:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 3:14:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM, ConnorSween16 wrote:
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.

A question to you and anyone else: why SHOULDN'T we start "a second Civil War" over this long standing issue of police brutality (and all the other types of discrimination that are compounded upon this)? We've been asking nicely for decades and decades and still the powers at be won't budge or just make small concessions - what else are we supposed to do?
Are you serious! Even more people would be killed! My great great grandfather (who was white) fought in the civil war to free slaves.
According to the fbi 120 black people are killed by cops a year and 400 white people are killed by black people a year. I guess we should all be 400 times more likely to start a war to end Black on white violence than we are to start a war to end police on Black violence And also according to the fbi 93% of the 7000 murderers of blacks a year are by other blacks! If anything wouldn't you go to war about the thing that's kills 7000 blacks a year and not just 120.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 8:20:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 8:04:18 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:14:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM, ConnorSween16 wrote:
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.

A question to you and anyone else: why SHOULDN'T we start "a second Civil War" over this long standing issue of police brutality (and all the other types of discrimination that are compounded upon this)? We've been asking nicely for decades and decades and still the powers at be won't budge or just make small concessions - what else are we supposed to do?
Are you serious! Even more people would be killed! My great great grandfather (who was white) fought in the civil war to free slaves.
According to the fbi 120 black people are killed by cops a year and 400 white people are killed by black people a year. I guess we should all be 400 times more likely to start a war to end Black on white violence than we are to start a war to end police on Black violence And also according to the fbi 93% of the 7000 murderers of blacks a year are by other blacks! If anything wouldn't you go to war about the thing that's kills 7000 blacks a year and not just 120.

Congratulations on missing the point. Again.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 8:32:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 3:14:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
A question to you and anyone else: why SHOULDN'T we start "a second Civil War" over this long standing issue of police brutality (and all the other types of discrimination that are compounded upon this)? We've been asking nicely for decades and decades and still the powers at be won't budge or just make small concessions - what else are we supposed to do?
Migrate to Britain, or somewhere else where violent instinct is not as prevalent in the average person, especially a policeman.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 9:13:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 8:20:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/28/2015 8:04:18 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:14:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/28/2015 8:16:01 AM, ConnorSween16 wrote:
Personally, I think the way the people of Baltimore are handling the situation currently is ridiculous. Is there a long standing issue of police brutality? Yes. Does that mean we should try to start a second Civil War? No.

A question to you and anyone else: why SHOULDN'T we start "a second Civil War" over this long standing issue of police brutality (and all the other types of discrimination that are compounded upon this)? We've been asking nicely for decades and decades and still the powers at be won't budge or just make small concessions - what else are we supposed to do?
Are you serious! Even more people would be killed! My great great grandfather (who was white) fought in the civil war to free slaves.
According to the fbi 120 black people are killed by cops a year and 400 white people are killed by black people a year. I guess we should all be 400 times more likely to start a war to end Black on white violence than we are to start a war to end police on Black violence And also according to the fbi 93% of the 7000 murderers of blacks a year are by other blacks! If anything wouldn't you go to war about the thing that's kills 7000 blacks a year and not just 120.

Congratulations on missing the point. Again.
And what was your point? That we should begin a war.