NationStates

Region of Dwipantara wrote:Isn't all these chaos are basically Russia's and China's wet dream?

It is indeed.

It's ironic how the people who seem most eager to burn the USA down are Americans themselves.

I believe there’s thread for the riots, but this thread seems to be more towards the morality of the riots. Burning the precinct was good symbolism, and they have more than enough money to rebuild it. There’s no reason to destroy businesses.

Rojava Free State wrote:

The Grims wrote:
Where the random innocent people who were targeted unaware of the plight of their black countrymen ? And if not, why did they not remedy it ? They had years. Decades.

Is one truly innocent when one stands by and does not stop evil ?

Then again quite a few victims were black themselves so in practice this line of reasoning may well lead nowhere.

These small business owners stand with the people. Dont burn their shit.

So how did they stand with the people last year?

The Grims wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
These small business owners stand with the people. Dont burn their shit.

So how did they stand with the people last year?

The same way everyone did? Under your logic of "no one was out protesting last year in Minneapolis," everyone's house should be burned down. People aren't protesting every second of the century you know. Instead of calling for a bike shop to burn, why don't you go ask the business owners what they think about the police.

The Grims wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:You're making it like those civilians have magic wands that can change the system. They don't. Many are not that influential.

The USA is a democracy. They are.

You don't seem to be aware of the political situation here. Our elections are corrupted by big money, elections between the lesser of the two evils, and we have politicians disconnected from the populace. We are now a klepocratic oligarchy.

I agree with some people that being violent against innocent parties like small business is wrong, but what do people think about the violence towards police? (I'm not sure) Some have said it's justified. I understand why it has happened, but is it morally right, given that the difference between an innocent policeman and an innocent small business owner might just be the clothes they go to work in?

I know not all policemen are innocent by the way. I just want to hear some opinions on this.

Mzeusia wrote:I agree with some people that being violent against innocent parties like small business is wrong, but what do people think about the violence towards police? (I'm not sure) Some have said it's justified. I understand why it has happened, but is it morally right, given that the difference between an innocent policeman and an innocent small business owner might just be the clothes they go to work in?

I know not all policemen are innocent by the way. I just want to hear some opinions on this.

Many police officers joined in on the peaceful protests

Aureumterra wrote:

Mzeusia wrote:I agree with some people that being violent against innocent parties like small business is wrong, but what do people think about the violence towards police? (I'm not sure) Some have said it's justified. I understand why it has happened, but is it morally right, given that the difference between an innocent policeman and an innocent small business owner might just be the clothes they go to work in?

I know not all policemen are innocent by the way. I just want to hear some opinions on this.

Many police officers joined in on the peaceful protests

Ah, okay. Thanks for telling me.

Innocents should not be targeted. They have practically nothing to do with this, and don't deserve to be beaten up or have their homes and/or businesses destroyed for no reason.

If violence is going to be used (which I wouldn't prefer), at least focus on the guilty party.

The question of general appropriateness aside it needs to be pointed out that in this specific case the vandalism, violence and looting appears not to be an organic result of protesters getting out of hand, but planned operations involving prepared supply drops and busing in people from out of state. Someone is hijacking these protests to engage in terrorism and that is absolutely not acceptable.

Mzeusia wrote:I agree with some people that being violent against innocent parties like small business is wrong, but what do people think about the violence towards police? (I'm not sure) Some have said it's justified. I understand why it has happened, but is it morally right, given that the difference between an innocent policeman and an innocent small business owner might just be the clothes they go to work in?

I know not all policemen are innocent by the way. I just want to hear some opinions on this.

Depends on the context.
For my own part i'll just leave it by saying that fighting riot police in the streets is dumb. You're allowing them to choose the time, place and manner of engagement, which is a recipe for defeat. There's a reason I make a mental note when I notice a policeman lives somewhere.

Stellar Colonies wrote:Innocents should not be targeted. They have practically nothing to do with this, and don't deserve to be beaten up or have their homes and/or businesses destroyed for no reason.

If violence is going to be used (which I wouldn't prefer), at least focus on the guilty party.

You mean the rioters ?

Ok military is a Go.

Mzeusia wrote:I agree with some people that being violent against innocent parties like small business is wrong, but what do people think about the violence towards police? (I'm not sure) Some have said it's justified. I understand why it has happened, but is it morally right, given that the difference between an innocent policeman and an innocent small business owner might just be the clothes they go to work in?

I know not all policemen are innocent by the way. I just want to hear some opinions on this.

Let me just say that my dad has been a policeman for my entire life. As such, I’ve met hundreds of policemen that my dad works with throughout my life. I have met one, total, that I would classify as someone who deserved to be hurt in protests like this, and he got fired and criminally charged for doing something similar to what caused all this going on right now. The other hundreds of policemen I have met do not deserve to get hurt in all of this, because they spend so many years of their lives to try to keep us safe and stop criminals. To everyone who is saying that it’s okay for police to get hurt in these riots, have you ever met any police? Because I have. And now, my dad, and hundreds of other innocent, awesome, nice people I have met, are now in danger because rioters are throwing rocks through the windows of their office, destroying their cars, and trying to set their department on fire. In what world has this ever been okay?

Rojava Free State wrote:Violence against small businesses is never justified. Don't burn the indian restaurant.

Violence against major corporate businesses like Target should be avoided, but I don't really feel sympathy for multinational corporation, Chinese sweatshop utilizing Target. I feel for their hourly employees but their corporate leadership are frankly scumfucks.

Violence against crooked police is justified, because if they can't keep from getting violent toward the populace, there is no reason not to brutalize them. Last night an NYPD officer ran protesters over in his car and the night before they bodyslammed a woman outside Barclay center. They deserve all the suffering they're getting. Zero sympathy from me.

Violence against McDonalds is even more justified because their food sucks ass, their managers are cocksuckers and they're represented by a creepy ass clown.

Preach.

Also, violence against the government is justified, for the same reasons as the crooked police.

Kathol Rift wrote:

Mzeusia wrote:I agree with some people that being violent against innocent parties like small business is wrong, but what do people think about the violence towards police? (I'm not sure) Some have said it's justified. I understand why it has happened, but is it morally right, given that the difference between an innocent policeman and an innocent small business owner might just be the clothes they go to work in?

I know not all policemen are innocent by the way. I just want to hear some opinions on this.

Let me just say that my dad has been a policeman for my entire life. As such, I’ve met hundreds of policemen that my dad works with throughout my life. I have met one, total, that I would classify as someone who deserved to be hurt in protests like this, and he got fired and criminally charged for doing something similar to what caused all this going on right now. The other hundreds of policemen I have met do not deserve to get hurt in all of this, because they spend so many years of their lives to try to keep us safe and stop criminals. To everyone who is saying that it’s okay for police to get hurt in these riots, have you ever met any police? Because I have. And now, my dad, and hundreds of other innocent, awesome, nice people I have met, are now in danger because rioters are throwing rocks through the windows of their office, destroying their cars, and trying to set their department on fire. In what world has this ever been okay?

Got to remember that not all police departments are the same. Like with bad teachers we don't get rid of bad cops, but send them to places where their behavior is tolerated. So your experience with police is not going to be the as that of someone who lives in these places.

Aclion wrote:

Kathol Rift wrote:Let me just say that my dad has been a policeman for my entire life. As such, I’ve met hundreds of policemen that my dad works with throughout my life. I have met one, total, that I would classify as someone who deserved to be hurt in protests like this, and he got fired and criminally charged for doing something similar to what caused all this going on right now. The other hundreds of policemen I have met do not deserve to get hurt in all of this, because they spend so many years of their lives to try to keep us safe and stop criminals. To everyone who is saying that it’s okay for police to get hurt in these riots, have you ever met any police? Because I have. And now, my dad, and hundreds of other innocent, awesome, nice people I have met, are now in danger because rioters are throwing rocks through the windows of their office, destroying their cars, and trying to set their department on fire. In what world has this ever been okay?

Got to remember that not all police departments are the same. Like with bad teachers we don't get rid of bad cops, but send them to places where their behavior is tolerated. So your experience with police is not going to be the as that of someone who lives in these places.

Oh, I’ve lived in a few places, with my dad getting moved around the state by the department. And I’ve met police from a few other departments as well. I’m counting police from low-income areas, high-income areas, primarily Navajo communities, primarily Mexican communities, primarily white communities, and primarily black communities. I’m counting police from the state, from the county, and from the cities. I’m counting highway patrol members, SWAT team members, riot police, city patrol police, and sheriff’s office. And my statement stands.

And besides, what was your point here? Are you trying to say that just because not all police are nice, it’s okay for the nice ones to get hurt? What point are you trying to make with that statement?

Soled wrote:

Heloin wrote:A bad democracy is still a democracy.

South Africa had full democracy for its white citizens, but it's hard to argue that it was "ruled by the people" when 80% of the population lived in constant fear and repression.

It was a bad democracy but it was still a democracy. It democratically voted itself out of existence.

Heloin wrote:

Soled wrote:South Africa had full democracy for its white citizens, but it's hard to argue that it was "ruled by the people" when 80% of the population lived in constant fear and repression.

It was a bad democracy but it was still a democracy. It democratically voted itself out of existence.

By your definition we could keep pushing the bar lower and lower. Aristocratic 18th-century Europe where only the landed nobility could vote were democracies, then. Even authoritarian regimes have some degree of democracy in the sense that decisions are typically never made by a single individual (unless people fear you immensely, like with Stalin and Hitler), but by a larger group, like a military junta. So those are democracies too, then. But I think what you're suggesting is that no matter how small the voting populace is, they'll always vote to grant the same rights to others. That's just not true.

Soled wrote:

Heloin wrote:It was a bad democracy but it was still a democracy. It democratically voted itself out of existence.

By your definition we could keep pushing the bar lower and lower. Aristocratic 18th-century Europe where only the landed nobility could vote were democracies, then.

Yes. Most early democracies worked exactly like that.

Even authoritarian regimes have some degree of democracy in the sense that decisions are typically never made by a single individual (unless people fear you immensely, like with Stalin and Hitler), but by a larger group, like a military junta. So those are democracies too, then. But I think what you're suggesting is that no matter how small the voting populace is, they'll always vote to grant the same rights to others. That's just not true.

No. You can think bad democracies that hug the line between democratic and oligarchic are not democracies but you'd be wrong.

Heloin wrote:

Soled wrote:By your definition we could keep pushing the bar lower and lower. Aristocratic 18th-century Europe where only the landed nobility could vote were democracies, then.

Yes. Most early democracies worked exactly like that.

Even authoritarian regimes have some degree of democracy in the sense that decisions are typically never made by a single individual (unless people fear you immensely, like with Stalin and Hitler), but by a larger group, like a military junta. So those are democracies too, then. But I think what you're suggesting is that no matter how small the voting populace is, they'll always vote to grant the same rights to others. That's just not true.

No. You can think bad democracies that hug the line between democratic and oligarchic are not democracies but you'd be wrong.

democracy
/dɪˈmɒkrəsi/
noun
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

No, riots are never appropriate. Protests? Protest all day long, I don't care. But the moment you infringe on the rights of others, you have crossed the line.
People who are looting and starting dumpster fires need to go away for a long time. They are utilizing the chaos to steal and make more chaos.

It's ok to be angry, but instead of causing property damage, put on your big-boy pants, and actually try to make a change. This is a democracy, after all. Run for governor or mayor, or a member of the state Senate instead of starting fires. The people who do start fires are anarchists and are against what America was founded on.

Heloin wrote:

Soled wrote:South Africa had full democracy for its white citizens, but it's hard to argue that it was "ruled by the people" when 80% of the population lived in constant fear and repression.

It was a bad democracy but it was still a democracy. It democratically voted itself out of existence.

I would say more of an oligarchy.

Best Title for these protest goes to the Libertarians.

https://reason.com/2020/05/31/nations-c ... cUyJh8GRBw

Greed and Death wrote:

Heloin wrote:It was a bad democracy but it was still a democracy. It democratically voted itself out of existence.

I would say more of an oligarchy.

There's a fine line and an oligarchy can yes be democratic but Apartheid South Africa, even under the extremely authoritarian Botha, was democratic. It was just a bad one.

Greed and Death wrote:Best Title for these protest goes to the Libertarians.

https://reason.com/2020/05/31/nations-c ... cUyJh8GRBw

It's like someone wrote a serious Onion title, and it's perfect.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

The Grims wrote:
The USA is a democracy. They are.

You don't seem to be aware of the political situation here. Our elections are corrupted by big money, elections between the lesser of the two evils, and we have politicians disconnected from the populace. We are now a klepocratic oligarchy.

I find it odd that corporations are essentially allowed to buy legislators’ votes on a certain topic. They can also get politicians to look the other way through money. I know this happens elsewhere around the world, but you’d think for the world’s “greatest” democracy that they’d have been able to eradicate such a corrupt practice long ago.