Did I miss the part where you suggested “meaningful progress towards solving it”?
Causing enough damage to garner attention isn’t a solution. Just like a child acting out will get the much wanted negative attention of an adult, it doesn’t cure the reason the child is acting out in the first place.
It’s disgusting.
I read about the violence on the streets - the authorities being hurt and even killed by these thugs. Destruction of property and freely looting businesses and government buildings. The calls for action and encouragement to spread the violence and rioting across the country.
I then put down my copy of ‘how America was founded’ and look at the news. You want to know how revolutions begin? We are seeing it - does this mean it will turn into that big of a movement - no, but it doesn’t take much to cause a blaze when you keep sweeping the crap into a corner and letting it soak in rage.
This video was disgusting regardless of who said it.
Please indicate how the LA riots helped curtail police violence, given the ongoing problem with police violence. While I can’t really condemn that kind of response, I honestly find it creepy you think of rioting as a solution, rather than the inevitable (and tragic) outcome of frustration, born from trying to work within a broken system. Rioting isn’t war, either figuratively or literally.
Got news for you; no one’s talking about police violence now. They’re talking about violent rioting that’s destroying the livelihoods of a lot of not-rich people who built small businesses in those areas. EDIT: I’m talking about the national media here. Of course people are still talking about the death, but it’s getting pushed off the headlines in most places.
I’m wondering if that’s still true.
Interesting how many people are ready to police this black man’s speech… He’s either bad for using racist speech (obviously to make a point about strengthening a stereotype) …or bad for counseling against violence in the city he (and not the BB commentariat) lives in.
While I’m sure it makes the hipster class warriors happy to see the violence against the “system” (the music store, the corner market, the gas station) I’m going to go way out on a limb here and say I think he probably has a better idea of what’s useful than I or most posters here do.
As for BB’s choice of a pull-quote, it did get the clicks.
Let’s examine the data.
Note the peaks that coincide with the initial protests in Ferguson and then the unrest after Darren Wilson was not indicted. Note also that the sustained level of articles about police brutality is higher overall even after the peaks.
We can also look at the number of searches on the term “police brutality” just recently. You see that peak around April 18th? That’s when protests started getting militant in Baltimore.
So this data shows that yes, our society does talk about police violence when people riot against police violence. The idea that it distracts from “the message” overlooks the obvious fact that nobody would be paying attention to the message at all if it weren’t for people getting rowdy.
I don’t have time to do charts for all the times unarmed black men were killed by the police and the response was just a press conference and an orderly march. But suffice to say that it happens a lot, and there’s a reason you and I don’t generally hear about it.
There may be more articles, but does that really show our society “talking” in any real way? Does it seem to make the violence go down? Does it result in action? It results in a flurry of articles and talking heads, but the only thing that seems to make a difference is prosecutions and more oversight…those may indeed be hastened by the violence, but in most cases the protests alone have sparked the prosecutions.
I do see the theory of violence pushing change. But the lasting damage in the communities is devastating, and usually targets exactly the people who are trying to provide a stable community. My wife’s cousin had an independent drugstore in LA that was burned in the riots. He’d been there for 15 years, and spent hours each week helping people fill out Medicaid/Medicare paperwork, extended long-term credit, sold a lot of drugs at near cost, gave free immunizations. After watching his store looted by people from the neighborhood, he didn’t consider rebuilding there for an instant…he’s now in a different state. The area lost a non-CVS drugstore and 4 jobs. That’s just one store. Worth it?
My initial thoughts too. Where’s the understanding of what drives people to act like that?
This video is probably on the front page of Stormfront by now.
This is also a response to those of you who upvoted @zikzak’s drivel:
@OtherMichael @FoolishOwl @FoolishOwl @shaddack @doctormatt @cgcat93 @Hanglyman @milliefink
Since you seem to agree with @zikzak, you can very much direct my responses and questions below to yourselves as well.
Who the fuck is “we”?
Because you sure as hell aren’t speaking for Freddie Gray. His family has repeatedly said he wouldn’t have wanted violence perpetrated in his name. Do you know better than his fucking family?
You spit on his family and you spit on his name by promoting violence in his name.
Speak for yourself.
But like I said, the LA Riots were more than 20 years ago
If the LA Riots were so productive, then why didn’t it have hardly any lasting change like we’ve seen from Martin Luther King’s peaceful protests and acts of civil disobedience from longer than 20 years ago?
It appears like many violent people and/or cowardly chickenhawks who promote violence, you aren’t really looking for lasting change. You’re embracing a violent pipedream instead. You’re blindly lashing out to satisfy your own stupid bloodlust.
Speaking in absolutes… how quaint. A classic trademark of those who promote senseless violence. Reminds me of this destructive chickenhawk:
Have you ever bothered to inform yourself on the extremely negative consequences that came about from that violence?
Jesus Christ, man. Fucking educate yourself:
54 people were killed. There was 2,383 injuries. There was 12,111 arrests along with 7,000 fires and nearly $1 billion in damages. Many of the small “mom and pop” businesses that provided precious few jobs left that community due to the riots and have never come back to this day. The riots decimated the community and the negative repercussions are still felt to this day.
… And very little changed!!!
Educate yourself:
Rodney King Is Dead, but Little Else Has Changed Since the Riots That Bore His Name
So, after reading that above do you still think violence is the answer? Are you going to do it yourself or are you a pathetic chickenhawk?
Are you going to burn down your own fucking home and/or your own place of business in support of the Baltimore protests? By your logic, that would contribute to the “conversation” and promote “progress”.
Are you going to put your own ass where your violence-promoting mouth is — or do you only think it’s a great idea when it’s the homes, livelihoods and safety of other people that are devastated — not yourself or anyone you know personally?
Are you a chicken hawk?
NO? Then send some pictures of your burning house or business. Send us some picts of your bashed in skull.
Are you ready to offer yourself, your friends and your loved ones up for getting your collective heads bashed in with permanent damage to your speech and ability to walk — like what happened to Reginald Denny?
Or, again… is that only OK when it happens to other people in the name of your so-called “progress”?
By promoting violence, you’re really not much better than those violent cops who think the ends justify their violent means.
You’ve obviously learned very little from Martin Luther King’s successes in civil rights.
I don’t know about you and how sheltered your life may be, but I’ve witnessed senseless violence (and its horrific aftereffects) firsthand and I can tell you from experience, it’s not as fucking glamorous and “productive” as you make it out to be.
In most cases, far more in this world goes backwards with everlasting, devastating externalities that linger across humanity than any progress that can be eeked out of it.
You’re promoting violence that only temporarily satisfies bloodlust in the short-term for chickenhawks and ignorant, violent assholes.
If you really want lasting change and true progress the way to do it is by informing each other, getting involved in community/media/government/etc. while utilizing peaceful protests and practicing civil disobedience.
The problem is there hasn’t been enough of those acts. There’s no shortage of violence, on the other hand.
When your ideas have more in common with this guy:
Than this guy:
Martin Luther King Jr. - Wikipedia.
— It’s time to question yourself.
It not like they can afford the internet anyways.
You could thank capitalism, corporate media, and other systematic tools of oppression from the elites.
Like I mentioned before, I’m all for Killing off Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Bros, and every single shill politicians that favor the elite 0.01%: but, I knew that ain’t going to solve anything fundamentally wrong with our current culture.
You mad bro? Or just channeling Wolf Blitzer? Or maybe your scared white suburban parents?
I don’t actually know who you are or where you’re from, or just why in your defense of peace, you’re so, basically, violent. But since you called me out for Liking zikzak’s comment:
I did so because I think that what happened in Baltimore is understandable. Yes, some of the violence was mindless, destructive, and dangerous to the property and even lives of innocents. But it was also expressive, more so than merely mindless. Much of it was an expression of frustration, rage, and desperation, so much so that “uprising” strikes me as a much more honest and respectful term for it than “riot.” And that expression of frustration, rage and desperation is not useless – how dare you dismiss it like that, unless you live there and suffer the daily degradation and hopelessness of what the ongoing reality of structural white supremacy has done to inner cities? And just because LA wasn’t totally, magically transformed by the LA riots doesn’t mean that riot/uprising didn’t do any good. People remember them; people remember Rodney King and what happened to him largely because of them.
I’m not advocating violence, but like another MLK (and not the pacfist, white-soothing version that you quoted), I have some sense of why it happens, and I’ve seen how it can make power listen. And if it hadn’t happened again in Baltimore, I don’t for a minute believe that those six cops would have been charged.
I’ll let that other MLK take over here, since he of course said it so much better than I’m saying it. Things just haven’t changed enough for what he said here for it to no longer be true:
Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.
A profound judgment of today’s riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, ‘If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.’
The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.
That’s an inane attempt at projection.
I didn’t advocate for violence nor support a post advocating for violence like you did.
You mad bro?
That’s infantile. Yes, I am an adult who is in touch with my own feelings and I am angry at those who promote violence. If within your stunted mindset that’s considered a weakness, then so be it.
I’m also not sorry that didn’t go the way you had hoped it would.
maybe your scared white suburban parents?
Black, urban singles are against the promotion of violence as well. I know this firsthand.
Anyway, I guess that was your stunted, bigoted attempt of saying that someone outright promoting violence attacked my fragile (supposedly white) sensibilities.
What I am, @milliefink, is a human that detests violence and chickenhawk assholes that promote it.
I did so because I think that what happened in Baltimore is understandable.
Then you made a mistake. You fucked up. The post you supported is outright promoting violence, not simply promoting an understanding of it.
Like you, I understand the anger and I understand why that anger leads to violence. What I don’t understand is why you supported a post that promotes violence as a solution while at the same time ignorantly dismissed peaceful actions as trivial.
You supported a post advocating for violence while you claim you don’t support violence. You seem terribly confused.
how dare you dismiss it like that, unless you live there and suffer the daily degradation and hopelessness of what the ongoing reality of structural white supremacy has done to inner cities?
You fucked up there too.
I’ve lived within inner cities. I’ve been directly involved with gangbangers, gun-runners, etc. in the past. I lived in southeast D.C. when the National Guard was called in. I’ve had my life in danger while living within these areas. I’ve had weapons pulled on my friends and myself. I’ve had weapons pulled by others to protect me. I’ve walked the streets with groups of black friends and witnessed racism from whites and cops directly. I had to drop a black girlfriend who turned out was racist against blacks.
I’ve seen people shot right in fucking front of me. I’ve seen the devastation of corporatist policies against mostly black neighborhoods I’ve lived within firsthand. I’ve witnessed and been a victim of racial profiling directly and even was put into jail and had to fight it in court.
Is that enough “street cred” for you?
Can you now stop acting like a bigot towards me?
I’m not advocating violence, but like another MLK (and not the pacfist, white-soothing version that you quoted)
People of all color and walks of life find peace soothing, friend.
I didn’t quote a “version” of MLK. I quoted MLK, period. If his own words don’t fit into your little, stunted paradigm, then that’s on you — not some “version” of MLK you’ve pretended I’ve manufactured.
I’ll let that other MLK take over here, since he of course said it so much better than I’m saying it.
You should re-read his words.
MLK is not promoting violence as @zikzak did and you’re delusional if you think MLK would have supported @zikzak’s calls for violence along with @zikzak’s inane shunning of peaceful demonstrations as useless.
You want to shift the goal posts and pretend your support of a person and post that’s outright promoting violence is something else. It’s not working.
I’m not advocating violence …
Then stop.
I also thank people that sit on their asses in front of computers advocating for violence instead of engaging and advocating for peaceful activism and peaceful civil disobedience.
Those of which were tools more than anything else.
From the Wikipedia article on the Deacons for Defense and Justice
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was no stranger to the idea of self-defense. According to Annelieke Dirks, “Even Martin Luther King Jr.—the icon of nonviolence—employed armed bodyguards and had guns in his house during the early stages of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956. Glenn Smiley, an organizer of the strictly nonviolent and pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), observed during a house visit that the police did not allow King a weapon permit, but that ‘the place is an arsenal." Efforts from those such as Smiley convinced Dr. King that any sort of weapons or “self-defense” could not be associated with someone holding King’s position. Dr. King agreed.
{…}
The Deacons had a relationship with other civil rights groups that advocated and practiced non-violence: the willingness of the Deacons to provide low-key armed guards facilitated the ability of groups such as the NAACP and CORE to stay, at least formally, within their own parameters of non-violence. Although many local chapters felt it was necessary to maintain a level of security by either practicing self-defense as some CORE, SNCC, and NAACP local chapters did, the national level of all these organizations still maintained the idea of non-violence to achieve civil rights.
That’s delusional.
What an incredibly disrespectful way to shit all over MLK’s legacy with delusional fantasy and ignorance.
EDUCATE YOURSELF:
You should fucking write a letter to MLK’s family and tell them how fucking sorry you are.
What’s your point?
Add me to the list, I just went back and liked it.
You sound a lot like
Those darn uppity rioters!
That nominally non-violent civil rights groups were, arguably, dependent on armed self-defense.
