1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Peaceful Protests

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  569
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
27 July 2020 13:14
 

There was a lot of talk about the people protesting the lockdown that were armed to the teeth.  I haven’t seen as much about NFAC, or the Not Fucking Around Coalition.  They had a protest in Louisville I think (for Breonna Taylor) where their leader said if they don’t get what they want they’ll “burn this motherfucker down”.  Also, these protesters were armed with what many would call ‘assault rifles’ similar to the people in Michigan.  And many were handling them like they’ve never handled a weapon before in their life, pointed the barrel at the crowd and other protesters - one of them even shot several other of his fellow protesters in the crowd!  Unreal.  Anyway, many said black folks couldn’t be armed like that without the cops mowing them down or some such nonsense.  Also, not much talk about this group, even when several are shot and they threaten destruction.

A protester armed with an AK got killed in Austin.  Not sure what happened, some have said a right wing racist guy slammed his car into a crowd and then shot him dead.  Others said the protester aimed his rifle at the driver (or opened his car door) and then was shot.  We’ll see - but the result is another death. 

Chop/Chaz zone in Seattle.  I think three people were killed there.  Broken windows, looting, fires, people dying. 

Portland.  People attacking a federal building with explosives, fireworks, trying to break down fences and remove plywood and burn the building down.  Looting, fires, graffitti everywhere.  What is the problem with this federal building?  Why must this place be attacked?  Are all of these videos I’ve seen deepfaked?  The business owners sympathetic to BLM but saying ‘enough is enough’.  The op-ed pieces in the local papers:
“I am angry at what is being allowed to happen to what was our beautiful city. All of the so-called leaders continue to allow nightly destruction. So many businesses are boarded up, so much graffiti, so many people out of work, restaurants and other places closed. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler tells us that the problem is the feds. Dear Ted: Did you not know that this was going on for five weeks before they got here? Our other local and state leaders all stand with Wheeler and watch the destruction, looting and violence and must think it’s totally fine and that the feds are the problem.  In fact, we’ll spend more money on a lawsuit against the feds. Where is this money coming from? From reduced tax income from devastated businesses, or just raise taxes on all the law-abiding citizens so you can play your little games of protecting the anarchists? Thanks to our leaders, Portland has a national reputation of being a hotbed of problems that no one wants to visit. Congratulations, your mission is accomplished.”

All of this is propaganda by Trump supporting bigots?  Those fires and fireworks and people using saws to cut through the fence around the federal building are CGI?  The people with hammers and saws trying to break through the barricaded windows?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHb3xVqxcp8

And something I don’t see happening is the ‘peaceful’ protesters trying to stop any of the destruction.  Nobody is running up to the guy who just threw a molotov or shot a firework and telling them to stop.  Nobody is running up to the people starting fires and saying “stop it - this is a peaceful protest!”  And why are so many videos around this federal property?  Why is this building so important?  I’m seriously asking.  Isn’t Portland big enough that you could go down the street and hold signs or sing or chant slogans?  Why are there so many people with shields getting so close to this building?  Can’t you just leave this specific area?

I know I’m in the minority on this site in thinking that the police/feds are being attacked, or that there’s any funny business going on within the crowds of protesters.  I started my own thread for anyone who wants to agree or disagree because disagreeing on other threads has been deemed heartless. 

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7181
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
27 July 2020 19:01
 

They’ve stopped calling them “peaceful protests.” Now they’re calling them “mostly peaceful protests.” In other words: peaceful useful idiots by day, hooligans and opportunists by night.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7397
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
27 July 2020 19:46
 
DEGENERATEON - 27 July 2020 01:14 PM

And something I don’t see happening is the ‘peaceful’ protesters trying to stop any of the destruction.

Are you looking in the right places? I’ve seen videos of peaceful protesters blocking looters and stopping thefts.
I’ve seen videos of mothers protecting protesters from police violence.  I’ve seen vets standing behind peaceful protesters and police violence.  I’ve see articles about reporters getting shot and injured by police.

Now, there may be funny business behind the police violence, but not in the above mentioned articles and videos.

Maybe you need to view more widely presented forms of media?

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  569
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
27 July 2020 20:23
 
Jefe - 27 July 2020 07:46 PM
DEGENERATEON - 27 July 2020 01:14 PM

And something I don’t see happening is the ‘peaceful’ protesters trying to stop any of the destruction.

Are you looking in the right places? I’ve seen videos of peaceful protesters blocking looters and stopping thefts.
I’ve seen videos of mothers protecting protesters from police violence.  I’ve seen vets standing behind peaceful protesters and police violence.  I’ve see articles about reporters getting shot and injured by police.

Now, there may be funny business behind the police violence, but not in the above mentioned articles and videos.

Maybe you need to view more widely presented forms of media?

Maybe so - I did see an old lady in a wheelchair try to block looters in Minneapolis at Target.  She was assaulted and sprayed with a fire extinguisher.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LN6vLAZKuEI

You may have noticed on the other thread that I acknowledge the guy getting shot by a rubber bullet, and that it likely was unwarranted.  If so - I hope the cop is held accountable.
The navy-sweatshirt guy I’m not sold completely on.  It’s possible that the cops told everyone to clear the area due to funny business and this guy said “I ain’t f’ing moving”.  Just a possibility- I don’t know. 

I watch all sorts of media - I try to get an accurate picture.  I’m biased towards what I think makes sense.  I don’t believe Trump.  Sean Hannity and Chris Cuomo are blowing hot air.  But I’ll watch a bit of both of them from time to time.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7397
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
27 July 2020 21:05
 
DEGENERATEON - 27 July 2020 08:23 PM

The navy-sweatshirt guy I’m not sold completely on.  It’s possible that the cops told everyone to clear the area due to funny business and this guy said “I ain’t f’ing moving”.  Just a possibility- I don’t know.

What makes you suspicious in this case? Is it a gut-feeling or something?

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  569
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
27 July 2020 22:28
 
Jefe - 27 July 2020 09:05 PM
DEGENERATEON - 27 July 2020 08:23 PM

The navy-sweatshirt guy I’m not sold completely on.  It’s possible that the cops told everyone to clear the area due to funny business and this guy said “I ain’t f’ing moving”.  Just a possibility- I don’t know.

What makes you suspicious in this case? Is it a gut-feeling or something?

I watched his interview with a local station and the video of the incident.  He stated he wanted to ask them why they are violating the constitution.  Did he deserve to be beaten with the baton or pepper sprayed for that?  No, but considering the circumstances he knew it was likely to go nowhere productive.  Asking them during the day time with no other active threats in the area would be a better choice.  The officers are almost assuredly telling him to back away, he refuses to and admits he knew he was going to be beaten.  It could be seen as an invitation to some sort of force. 
Now you might say “Jesus you’re just making excuses” but the circumstances matter.  What happened in that area?  Was a riot declared and people were told to leave the area or face arrest /being forcefully removed?  Did the environment around him appear to be calm?  Was this an attempt at an honest conversation or an invitation for conflict?
I don’t know the facts, I’m just suspicious that he only wanted to talk and had no indication he was putting himself in a bad position.

 

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6700
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
27 July 2020 23:06
 

When folks want to exercise their right to peacefully protest, should they stop and consider what other activities they might be seen as endorsing?

When folks want to gather together and combine their voice, they’re probably gonna want to march or parade in the street to the local seat of authority. They’ll need something to sing or chant or shout at if only symbolically. We’ve all seen enough historic protests on TV to know what to do to be a part of one.

If an individual protester in the parade spots someone fire-bombing a building, why should their first thought be that the perp is sullying the meaning of their participation? Should they drop their sign and go tackle someone armed with fire-bombs while shouting “citizens arrest!”? Should they all shut up and go home before they are held responsible for more fires? Why should the protesters believe that they have brought this on?

Their parade will attract pick-pockets and disrupt prostitution. Lost signage may impede drainage. Comprehensive auto insurance will go way up. Folks should weigh all these things against their desire to peacefully protest. Right?

Consider the recent videos from Liverpool after their whatzit team became champs. Or what happens to Detroit when the Red Wings win the cup-thingie. A civically minded coach should rein in the team if they’re winning the playoffs before they are responsible for costly civic mayhem. Consider the volley of gunfire that heralds in the New Year. There is an underlying boil of hooliganism that almost anything can prick. Are fans of proportionality noticing the tilt in gender?

I could put on a lab coat and say, as a social scientist, that this could have more to do with discouraging masturbation than anyone’s political aspirations.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7397
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
27 July 2020 23:13
 
DEGENERATEON - 27 July 2020 10:28 PM

He stated he wanted to ask them why they are violating the constitution.  Did he deserve to be beaten with the baton or pepper sprayed for that?  No, but….

How about just ‘no’?  Why is the ‘but’ necessary?
If he didn’t commit a crime, and just wanted to ask a question, he should not have faced forceful measures. (I.e. Assault by police.)

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  569
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2020 07:26
 
Jefe - 27 July 2020 11:13 PM
DEGENERATEON - 27 July 2020 10:28 PM

He stated he wanted to ask them why they are violating the constitution.  Did he deserve to be beaten with the baton or pepper sprayed for that?  No, but….

How about just ‘no’?  Why is the ‘but’ necessary?
If he didn’t commit a crime, and just wanted to ask a question, he should not have faced forceful measures. (I.e. Assault by police.)

Because the circumstances matter.  Take the wheelchair lady blocking the exit at Target.  Did she deserve to be beat by looters?  No, but what could any reasonable person expect to happen when you put yourself in that position?  There were also claims she had a knife and was swiping at people.  That changes the story a bit, she still probably didn’t deserve the attack - but WTF are you doing there?  Isn’t this obviously a bad idea?
I’m suspicious that this guy’s intent was to have a civil conversation with some officers.  “Why are you violating the constitution?!”  Where is that going to go?  Did the officers just fend off a volley of rocks thrown in their direction?  Who knows, I’m just not so quick to say “yep the feds are indiscriminately beating people for no reason”.

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5453
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
28 July 2020 08:23
 

Most of these situations are ambiguous. We have short video clips. Discordant personal accounts and unreliable formal reports. Even as an eyewitness it’s often hard to tell what’s going on. Very rarely can we state with confidence who was at fault and why. What I don’t understand, and I’ll leave the issue alone afterwards, is why give all the benefit of the doubt to the person who, as far as we know, instigated violence? Why not have at least the same degree of charity for the person who was unarmed, non confrontational and who suffered the injury?  Seriously, if we are going to fill gaps with speculation why does the victim get assigned more guilt and the attacker less? I just don’t understand the motive to do that.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7397
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
28 July 2020 08:25
 
DEGENERATEON - 28 July 2020 07:26 AM

Because the circumstances matter.

Unless the circumstance is under-trained police using excessive force because that’s the only tool in their box. 
Which is the point of the peaceful protests IIRCC.

 

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  503
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
28 July 2020 08:31
 
DEGENERATEON - 27 July 2020 10:28 PM
Jefe - 27 July 2020 09:05 PM
DEGENERATEON - 27 July 2020 08:23 PM

The navy-sweatshirt guy I’m not sold completely on.  It’s possible that the cops told everyone to clear the area due to funny business and this guy said “I ain’t f’ing moving”.  Just a possibility- I don’t know.

What makes you suspicious in this case? Is it a gut-feeling or something?

I watched his interview with a local station and the video of the incident.  He stated he wanted to ask them why they are violating the constitution.  Did he deserve to be beaten with the baton or pepper sprayed for that?  No, but considering the circumstances he knew it was likely to go nowhere productive.  Asking them during the day time with no other active threats in the area would be a better choice.  The officers are almost assuredly telling him to back away, he refuses to and admits he knew he was going to be beaten.  It could be seen as an invitation to some sort of force. 
Now you might say “Jesus you’re just making excuses” but the circumstances matter.  What happened in that area?  Was a riot declared and people were told to leave the area or face arrest /being forcefully removed?  Did the environment around him appear to be calm?  Was this an attempt at an honest conversation or an invitation for conflict?
I don’t know the facts, I’m just suspicious that he only wanted to talk and had no indication he was putting himself in a bad position.

Let’s apply your logic to the protests in Alabama in the 50’s.  You think that Martin Luther King Jr. should have just gone home and accepted the situation.  That they knew what they were getting into, and therefore the police violence in the 50’s is okay.  It was the protesters fault.  They knew that provoking police violence was a danger, and therefore it was their fault.

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  569
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2020 08:32
 
Nhoj Morley - 27 July 2020 11:06 PM

When folks want to exercise their right to peacefully protest, should they stop and consider what other activities they might be seen as endorsing?

When folks want to gather together and combine their voice, they’re probably gonna want to march or parade in the street to the local seat of authority. They’ll need something to sing or chant or shout at if only symbolically. We’ve all seen enough historic protests on TV to know what to do to be a part of one.

If an individual protester in the parade spots someone fire-bombing a building, why should their first thought be that the perp is sullying the meaning of their participation? Should they drop their sign and go tackle someone armed with fire-bombs while shouting “citizens arrest!”? Should they all shut up and go home before they are held responsible for more fires? Why should the protesters believe that they have brought this on?

Their parade will attract pick-pockets and disrupt prostitution. Lost signage may impede drainage. Comprehensive auto insurance will go way up. Folks should weigh all these things against their desire to peacefully protest. Right?

Consider the recent videos from Liverpool after their whatzit team became champs. Or what happens to Detroit when the Red Wings win the cup-thingie. A civically minded coach should rein in the team if they’re winning the playoffs before they are responsible for costly civic mayhem. Consider the volley of gunfire that heralds in the New Year. There is an underlying boil of hooliganism that almost anything can prick. Are fans of proportionality noticing the tilt in gender?

I could put on a lab coat and say, as a social scientist, that this could have more to do with discouraging masturbation than anyone’s political aspirations.

The fact that men flood the prison system must have an explanation.  Some would say it’s sexism.  Nearly all of these police shootings and acts of brutality involve male victims.  Why are men targeted for this treatment?

Why doesn’t Portland have a curfew?  From what I decipher, most of the hooliganism is happening after the sun goes down.  It’s not the responsibility for a citizen to tackle someone with a fire-bomb, that’s the police function.  Why would the peaceful protesters have anything against these bad actors being brought to justice? 

It seems your position is “Hey I’m just peacefully protesting, these violent and destructive folk aren’t my concern.  I don’t endorse that behavior, but I’m not going to head back home because of it.  This hooliganism is inevitable.”
If that’s a fair enough summation, then you should expect that the police will have a response.  And you may get caught up in the tear gas.

 

 

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  569
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2020 09:29
 
Brick Bungalow - 28 July 2020 08:23 AM

Most of these situations are ambiguous. We have short video clips. Discordant personal accounts and unreliable formal reports. Even as an eyewitness it’s often hard to tell what’s going on. Very rarely can we state with confidence who was at fault and why. What I don’t understand, and I’ll leave the issue alone afterwards, is why give all the benefit of the doubt to the person who, as far as we know, instigated violence? Why not have at least the same degree of charity for the person who was unarmed, non confrontational and who suffered the injury?  Seriously, if we are going to fill gaps with speculation why does the victim get assigned more guilt and the attacker less? I just don’t understand the motive to do that.

I can describe my motive.  Because we have situations where people see these short video clips and have reached their conclusion.  They are so sure that the person that apparently instigated violence is at fault, that they will riot and demand justice.  Mike Brown, Alton Sterling, Keith Scott, Terrance Crutcher, Thurman Blevins, Stephon Clark.  There is no degree of charity in these cases, the officers are guilty of a racist homicide and the riots will start until there’s justice.  But then the rest of the story comes out - and the officer acted within the law.  Now who is repairing all of the damage?  Who was treated unfairly?
The speculation that the video clip doesn’t tell the full story is legit.  It’s been skewed towards the the police.  Their lives have been upended and towns f’ed up over a mob’s “benefit of the doubt”. 
“Very rarely can we state with confidence who was at fault and why.”
But that’s what’s been happening all over the country. 

Edit - I forgot Rayshard Brooks in the list above.  Just remembered because I was listening to AG Barr testify to congress.  Ms. Jackson Lee just stated that Rayshard Brooks was killed for sleeping in his car at a Wendy’s.  Do you see what I mean?  Can you concede that this is outrageous?!

[ Edited: 28 July 2020 10:00 by DEGENERATEON]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  943
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2020 09:37
 
DEGENERATEON - 28 July 2020 08:32 AM
Nhoj Morley - 27 July 2020 11:06 PM

When folks want to exercise their right to peacefully protest, should they stop and consider what other activities they might be seen as endorsing?

When folks want to gather together and combine their voice, they’re probably gonna want to march or parade in the street to the local seat of authority. They’ll need something to sing or chant or shout at if only symbolically. We’ve all seen enough historic protests on TV to know what to do to be a part of one.

If an individual protester in the parade spots someone fire-bombing a building, why should their first thought be that the perp is sullying the meaning of their participation? Should they drop their sign and go tackle someone armed with fire-bombs while shouting “citizens arrest!”? Should they all shut up and go home before they are held responsible for more fires? Why should the protesters believe that they have brought this on?

Their parade will attract pick-pockets and disrupt prostitution. Lost signage may impede drainage. Comprehensive auto insurance will go way up. Folks should weigh all these things against their desire to peacefully protest. Right?

Consider the recent videos from Liverpool after their whatzit team became champs. Or what happens to Detroit when the Red Wings win the cup-thingie. A civically minded coach should rein in the team if they’re winning the playoffs before they are responsible for costly civic mayhem. Consider the volley of gunfire that heralds in the New Year. There is an underlying boil of hooliganism that almost anything can prick. Are fans of proportionality noticing the tilt in gender?

I could put on a lab coat and say, as a social scientist, that this could have more to do with discouraging masturbation than anyone’s political aspirations.

The fact that men flood the prison system must have an explanation.  Some would say it’s sexism.  Nearly all of these police shootings and acts of brutality involve male victims.  Why are men targeted for this treatment?

Why doesn’t Portland have a curfew?  From what I decipher, most of the hooliganism is happening after the sun goes down.  It’s not the responsibility for a citizen to tackle someone with a fire-bomb, that’s the police function.  Why would the peaceful protesters have anything against these bad actors being brought to justice? 

It seems your position is “Hey I’m just peacefully protesting, these violent and destructive folk aren’t my concern.  I don’t endorse that behavior, but I’m not going to head back home because of it.  This hooliganism is inevitable.”
If that’s a fair enough summation, then you should expect that the police will have a response.  And you may get caught up in the tear gas.

 

 

Why do peacefully protesting Americans just have to accept violence from the government just because some other’s people are committing crimes?

In my opinion you’re looking at this completely backwards.  If I’m not committing a crime, the law shouldn’t fuck with me.
Isn’t this the land of Liberty?

 

[ Edited: 28 July 2020 11:43 by mapadofu]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  503
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
28 July 2020 09:56
 

It’s a country founded by men who violently resisted their government.

Stephen Miller calling democrats secessionists.

I’m pretty sure he has no clue how ironic his statements are, since he’s also written speeches for Trump defending statues of Democrat secessionists.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›