The Fora: A Higher Education Community

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 06:12:10 AM

Title: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 06:12:10 AM
The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 06:14:04 AM
All violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Diogenes on January 08, 2021, 06:21:31 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 06:14:04 AM
All violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

Define "violent"
Does that include just vandalism?
What if only one individual causes physical injury, while the rest are just kicking over trash cans?
What if it's a bunch of drunk frat boys and sorority co-eds who are just excited about their area sports team winning?
What if it's a bunch of drunk frat boys and sorority co-eds who are just bummed about their area sports team losing?

Part of a quality gen Ed curriculum is to help people understand and navigate the complexities and grey areas in life. You clearly didn't get that.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:04:20 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 06:12:10 AM
The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?

Best thing Joe Biden can do is be a one term president. He's not even president yet and he's already showing us his spineless, acquiesce to the noisy 'activists' side..

"You can't tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesters yesterday they wouldn't have been treated very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol," Biden said in Wilmington, before beginning to hammer his fist against the lectern. "We all know that is true. And it is totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. The American people saw it in plain view."

So what's the solution, Joe? More looting privileges? I seem to remember widespread looting and in at least one city, the mob owning the streets and setting fire to a police cruiser. And the police let them. Not to mention there were fatalities on Wednesday. This article sums it up well.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/stop-trying-to-make-the-capitol-riots-into-a-race-issue

And I expect Kamala Harris to be screaming about race at every opportunity. The only good thing about them winning as opposed to someone with more sanity and backbone is that they are now the establishment. When there are riots, it will be their problem. And they will have and also deserve the job of fixing it with solutions, instead of heckling the main act from the balcony. I almost laugh -- Joe's acting like he's still campaigning. No Joe. You won. Time to roll up your shirtsleeves and get to work.
on edit: Actually, Harris has shown she's got the stomach for being tough on criminals. Perhaps she will just switch hats.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:16:16 AM
More general answer: it is not the job of police to hug protesters or rioters or take photos with them or otherwise self dramatize for a social justice cause built on exaggeration and media hype. We already have professional athletes for that. Police need to stick to their job when it's unpleasant and potentially unpopular too. That's what they signed up for.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2021, 08:18:23 AM
Rioters should be prosecuted. The details of that prosecution depend on the details of the rioting. Trump's rioters should be prosecuted for all of the usual things, as well as charges related to sedition and treason.

There is a myth among conservatives that liberals don't want to prosecute rioters, but I have not heard that from, for example, Democratic leadership. On the other hand, a large segment of the "conservative" party, led by its leader, actively encouraged rioting in the capital.

What some posters have a problem with is politicians and citizens being outraged by racism, police brutality, and the double standard in law enforcement, which are perfectly reasonable things to be outraged about.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:30:12 AM
You cannot, and should not, criminalize dissent. And yet, for all the free speech talk, the last twenty years have seen dissent increasingly criminalized, and state responses to it have gotten much more violent. That's very bad, and Biden has shown no signs at all that he will reverse the trend. Also: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal. By contrast, beating someone to death with a fire extinguisher is a big deal.

But make no mistake: what happened on January 6 was not an ordinary protest gone wrong. It was a straightforward coup attempt, a terrorist act that failed. The US came within a whisker of losing the first three people in the presidential line of succession, along with a goodly chunk of the country's politicians. Had the terrorists been only a little more competent, organized, and determined, we'd be having a very different conversation.

It was a dress rehearsal for the future, and it exposed some pretty fucking serious problems in the law enforcement community. Those problems were there for all to see for a long time--they're not new!--but I think they're much harder to ignore now. It is appropriate and necessary for the perpetrators to be pursued to the full extent of the law.



Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 06:14:04 AM
All violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

No. You absolutely cannot begin massacring your own population, especially over their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights, even if it gets violent. That is a very, very bad path to take.


Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:04:20 AM

Best thing Joe Biden can do is be a one term president. He's not even president yet and he's already showing us his spineless, acquiesce to the noisy 'activists' side..

"You can't tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesters yesterday they wouldn't have been treated very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol," Biden said in Wilmington, before beginning to hammer his fist against the lectern. "We all know that is true. And it is totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. The American people saw it in plain view."


There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:31:29 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2021, 08:18:23 AM
What some posters have a problem with is politicians and citizens being outraged by racism, police brutality, and the double standard in law enforcement, which are perfectly reasonable things to be outraged about.

There's no outrage about police brutality against white civilians. White lives don't matter. if you don't care about that, you lose your opportunity to convince.

QuoteThere is a myth among conservatives that liberals don't want to prosecute rioters, but I have not heard that from, for example, Democratic leadership. On the other hand, a large segment of the "conservative" party, led by its leader, actively encouraged rioting in the capital.

There's a myth that our jails are full of innocent young black men and democratic leaders don't have the balls to comment much at all on the question.

QuoteAlso: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal. By contrast, beating someone to death with a fire extinguisher is a big deal.

I encourage you to google thing like 'wanton or careless destruction of property' 'negligent damaging of property' and then 'malicious destruction of property.' Motive matters. We are paying for protection against menacing citizens. There are specific difference in the law for a reason.
Or just go on being an anarchist if that suits you.



Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:34:23 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:30:12 AM


There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.

In a word, bullshit. The police were overwhelmed on Wednesday. There was miscalculation and unperprepareness. One of them is in critical condition today. I bet his wife would have something to say to people who claim the police let them in intentionally.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2021, 08:42:55 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:31:29 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 08, 2021, 08:18:23 AM
What some posters have a problem with is politicians and citizens being outraged by racism, police brutality, and the double standard in law enforcement, which are perfectly reasonable things to be outraged about.

There's no outrage about police brutality against white civilians. White lives don't matter. if you don't care about that, you lose your opportunity to convince.

QuoteThere is a myth among conservatives that liberals don't want to prosecute rioters, but I have not heard that from, for example, Democratic leadership. On the other hand, a large segment of the "conservative" party, led by its leader, actively encouraged rioting in the capital.

There's a myth that our jails are full of innocent young black men and democratic leaders don't have the balls to comment much at all on the question.


A typically irrelevant set of responses to specific points that I made about rioting, the topic of this thread.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:45:31 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:34:23 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:30:12 AM


There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.

In a word, bullshit. The police were overwhelmed on Wednesday. There was miscalculation and unperprepareness. One of them is in critical condition today. I bet his wife would have something to say to people who claim the police let them in intentionally.


Bullshit. This was planned in the open, for days (weeks?) in advance. The BLM protests, on the other hand, were mostly spontaneous.

And even if they were just incompetent and caught off-guard, their eventual response was awfully kind. How many people were arrested, again? How many people gassed, how many skulls and bones cracked? How many litres of gas were used, and how many rubber bullets fired? How many police vehicles rammed the crowd? How many people were escorted off the premises and allowed to go on their merry way? How many people were snatched off the street and put into unmarked vehicles by masked and unidentifiable law enforcement officials in camo?

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: lightning on January 08, 2021, 08:50:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 06:12:10 AM
The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?


We can discuss 2020, the Bonus Army, Kent State, and other historical events, later. We can speculatively discuss the Biden administration's plans to deal with civil unrest and what we would like to see, later.

Discussing this now would give the appearance of an attempt to contextualize the Jan. 6 insurrection/sedition/invasion/terrorist attack/protest/riot/demonstration (whatever you want to call it) into a larger related but distracting discussion, a subtle "whataboutism" attempt to mitigate the cognitive dissonance and the political fallout of those who agreed with and aligned with Trump and the MAGA movement.


Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 09:08:24 AM
QuoteAlso: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal.

It's no myth that people on the left, democratic voters, do not want to prosecute all of the guilty rioters. Para just admitted it. As well as no interest in the difference between accidentally knocking over a public wastebasket because people are pressing against you and it couldn't be helped versus smashing windows so you can steal. And then getting defended in the media for seeking restitution for debts owed because of slavery.
on edit: Oh I almost forgot. Setting fire to police cruisers. Well, it can't be helped when a large group of people assemble. Yeah, doesn't that regularly happen at football games?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 09:20:42 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:45:31 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:34:23 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:30:12 AM


There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.

In a word, bullshit. The police were overwhelmed on Wednesday. There was miscalculation and unperprepareness. One of them is in critical condition today. I bet his wife would have something to say to people who claim the police let them in intentionally.


Bullshit. This was planned in the open, for days (weeks?) in advance. The BLM protests, on the other hand, were mostly spontaneous.


In places like Portland, riots continued for weeks (or months). Even if they are spontaneous, how long should they be able to continue before being shut down?

Quote from: lightning on January 08, 2021, 08:50:13 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 06:12:10 AM
The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?


We can discuss 2020, the Bonus Army, Kent State, and other historical events, later. We can speculatively discuss the Biden administration's plans to deal with civil unrest and what we would like to see, later.

Discussing this now would give the appearance of an attempt to contextualize the Jan. 6 insurrection/sedition/invasion/terrorist attack/protest/riot/demonstration (whatever you want to call it) into a larger related but distracting discussion, a subtle "whataboutism" attempt to mitigate the cognitive dissonance and the political fallout of those who agreed with and aligned with Trump and the MAGA movement.

How is it "whataboutism" to say that all violent protest should be dealt with summarily? The Jan. 6 rioters don't deserve any more sympathy than anyone else involved in that kind of violent rioting.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 09:08:24 AM
QuoteAlso: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal.

It's no myth that people on the left, democratic voters, do not want to prosecute all of the guilty rioters. Para just admitted it. As well as no interest in the difference between accidentally knocking over a public wastebasket because people are pressing against you and it couldn't be helped versus smashing windows so you can steal. And then getting defended in the media for seeking restitution for debts owed because of slavery.

Broken property can be replaced. It's not the kind of crime that merits a response resulting in loss of life or limb.

I'm not at all worried that the terrorists stole the congressional lectern yesterday. Who gives a fuck? It's a lectern, grow up. I am worried that they tried to overthrow the government. I am worried that some of them planned to kidnap or execute politicians. I am worried that they beat a cop to death with a fire extinguisher. And, hey! I'm also worried that the cops shot one of them and she died since, given that nobody else felt the need to shoot them, it seems unlikely it was necessary to shoot her. And I'm worried that the people in charge seem to think that peaceful protests merit a more serious response than a coup attempt. Those things are a big deal.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 09:25:10 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 09:08:24 AM
QuoteAlso: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal.

It's no myth that people on the left, democratic voters, do not want to prosecute all of the guilty rioters. Para just admitted it. As well as no interest in the difference between accidentally knocking over a public wastebasket because people are pressing against you and it couldn't be helped versus smashing windows so you can steal. And then getting defended in the media for seeking restitution for debts owed because of slavery.

Broken property can be replaced. It's not the kind of crime that merits a response resulting in loss of life or limb.


By that standard, bombing empty buildings is no big deal.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:29:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 09:20:42 AM

In places like Portland, riots continued for weeks (or months). Even if they are spontaneous, how long should they be able to continue before being shut down?

My point was that they began spontaneously. The violent police over-response triggered a cycle of further protests and occasional rioting.

Remember also that of 7750 BLM protests that took place between May 26 and August 22, 2020, over 93% (https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/) were peaceful by any measure (including vandalism and property damage which, as you know, I don't class as 'violent' in the first place).


I do think there's a need for intervention when there's violence, or when property damage is not isolated, but spreads through the crowd (and as someone who has been to his share of very, very large protests--including crowds in the several hundreds of thousands--I can tell you that's awfully rare). That response needs to be measured, and should not focus on causing bodily harm to the crowd or holding crowds of thousands responsible for the actions of a handful of people. And it should never, ever, be a pre-emptive and violent response, which is what we saw over and over again in Portland and elsewhere.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 09:25:10 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 09:08:24 AM
QuoteAlso: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal.

It's no myth that people on the left, democratic voters, do not want to prosecute all of the guilty rioters. Para just admitted it. As well as no interest in the difference between accidentally knocking over a public wastebasket because people are pressing against you and it couldn't be helped versus smashing windows so you can steal. And then getting defended in the media for seeking restitution for debts owed because of slavery.

Broken property can be replaced. It's not the kind of crime that merits a response resulting in loss of life or limb.


By that standard, bombing empty buildings is no big deal.

It isn't a very big deal when nobody is hurt or put in danger, no. It's not a good thing, obviously, but it's also nowhere near as big a deal as actually hurting someone.

Likewise, stealing a lectern isn't as big a deal as bombing a building. It's not a good thing, but it would be stupid to equate the two.


And lest we forget, the terrorists actually tried to bomb the building with everyone still inside it. And that is a big deal.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: lightning on January 08, 2021, 09:40:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 09:20:42 AM

. . .

How is it "whataboutism" to say that all violent protest should be dealt with summarily? The Jan. 6 rioters don't deserve any more sympathy than anyone else involved in that kind of violent rioting.

It should be obvious.

But if you need an example, look what happened with the thread that you started. It sucked part of the fora into defending BLM protests, instead of keeping the focus on Trump, Republicans, MAGA, the attempt to overturn election results, discussions of treason, and most importantly, the placement and degree of culpability and accountability for the Jan. 6 insurrection (or whatever you want to call it), beginning with Trump himself, downward to his enablers like Pence & McConnell, to the Republican congress people who wanted to overturn election results, to the ones who did the actual storming of the Capitol, to the inciters, to the enablers, to the ones who cheered on, to the apologists, to the ones who silently agreed with all of them and let them do it, all the way to the ones who would rather focus on 2020 civil unrest, so they don't have to confront their role, in Jan. 6, whether direct or indirect.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 09:08:24 AM
QuoteAlso: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal.

It's no myth that people on the left, democratic voters, do not want to prosecute all of the guilty rioters. Para just admitted it. As well as no interest in the difference between accidentally knocking over a public wastebasket because people are pressing against you and it couldn't be helped versus smashing windows so you can steal. And then getting defended in the media for seeking restitution for debts owed because of slavery.

Broken property can be replaced. It's not the kind of crime that merits a response resulting in loss of life or limb.

I'm not at all worried that the terrorists stole the congressional lectern yesterday. Who gives a fuck? It's a lectern, grow up. I am worried that they tried to overthrow the government. I am worried that some of them planned to kidnap or execute politicians. I am worried that they beat a cop to death with a fire extinguisher. And, hey! I'm also worried that the cops shot one of them and she died since, given that nobody else felt the need to shoot them, it seems unlikely it was necessary to shoot her. And I'm worried that the people in charge seem to think that peaceful protests merit a more serious response than a coup attempt. Those things are a big deal.

You posted that it's impossible to stop property damage from happening. Last summer in Boston rioters set fire to a Police cruiser. The buildup to this incident, and the media coverage predicting it, including a former officer included in the broadcast, went on for some 20 minutes. A decision was made to let it happen. They could have been stopped. I am not going to sit here while some puffed up classroom teacher with a PhD who has likely never faced danger of any serious kind says it's no big deal, without responding. I'm a taxpayer, and think it's a big deal, because where there is malicious destruction of property there is serious danger to innocent people. And I think people like you serve as an excellent negative example of what is rotten in higher education.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:59:02 AM
ROFL
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: apl68 on January 08, 2021, 10:05:07 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:30:12 AM
You cannot, and should not, criminalize dissent. And yet, for all the free speech talk, the last twenty years have seen dissent increasingly criminalized, and state responses to it have gotten much more violent. That's very bad, and Biden has shown no signs at all that he will reverse the trend. Also: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal. By contrast, beating someone to death with a fire extinguisher is a big deal.

But make no mistake: what happened on January 6 was not an ordinary protest gone wrong. It was a straightforward coup attempt, a terrorist act that failed. The US came within a whisker of losing the first three people in the presidential line of succession, along with a goodly chunk of the country's politicians. Had the terrorists been only a little more competent, organized, and determined, we'd be having a very different conversation.

It was a dress rehearsal for the future, and it exposed some pretty fucking serious problems in the law enforcement community. Those problems were there for all to see for a long time--they're not new!--but I think they're much harder to ignore now. It is appropriate and necessary for the perpetrators to be pursued to the full extent of the law.



Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 06:14:04 AM
All violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

No. You absolutely cannot begin massacring your own population, especially over their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights, even if it gets violent. That is a very, very bad path to take.


Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:04:20 AM

Best thing Joe Biden can do is be a one term president. He's not even president yet and he's already showing us his spineless, acquiesce to the noisy 'activists' side..

"You can't tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesters yesterday they wouldn't have been treated very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol," Biden said in Wilmington, before beginning to hammer his fist against the lectern. "We all know that is true. And it is totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. The American people saw it in plain view."


There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.

One rioter was shot dead.  Three others died from what appear to have been attacks brought on by stress.  Fourteen police were injured, one fatally.  I don't recall any BLM protests in which five people died.  I don't see where this was not a "robust" response.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 10:14:13 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:59:02 AM
ROFL

I think I see what's happening. Whereas everyone posting on these fora in the last several days is concerned and shocked that an attempt to subvert government has been carried out, and there was never any debate over that,  you believe that your caring is for some reason, special. Now I'm laughing.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 10:14:28 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 08, 2021, 09:40:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 09:20:42 AM

. . .

How is it "whataboutism" to say that all violent protest should be dealt with summarily? The Jan. 6 rioters don't deserve any more sympathy than anyone else involved in that kind of violent rioting.

It should be obvious.

But if you need an example, look what happened with the thread that you started. It sucked part of the fora into defending BLM protests, instead of keeping the focus on Trump, Republicans, MAGA, ....

It only "sucked part of the fora into defending BLM protests" inasmuch as they felt the need to defend BLM protests. Anyone willing to renounce violent protests for any cause are free to be as explicit as they want about the Jan. 6 events. 

Trying to make two different sets of rules is always going to be more complicated than making one set of rules to be applied consistently.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: apl68 on January 08, 2021, 10:27:53 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 06:12:10 AM
The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?

This thread has predictably turned into an instant slanging match between our resident radicals,  but I thought it could use at least one honest response to an honest question.

For law enforcement in rioting, there are no good solutions.  A "robust" response will likely lead to injuries and possibly deaths among protestors and police, as has happened just now in Washington.  Then again, if the police hold off in hopes of not escalating the situation, things can get out of hand and they will be blamed for that. 

We see this damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dynamic with the Capitol Hill police.  They're being roundly condemned for not making a strong enough initial display of force to deter the rioters from rioting in the first place.  That's an obvious failure, and it may indeed be the case that they would have had a different response had this been a BLM protest.  But that's a hindsight judgement.  At the time they probably feared that a display of that sort may have provoked exactly the kind of violence that they were hoping to deter.  And they may well have been right.  We'll never know now.  At any rate, this was pretty much a no-win situation for them.

There just aren't any easy answers.  Every potentially violent protest situation is different, and every one requires its own judgement calls.  In the event of violence, any and all decisions made by law enforcement will be picked apart in hindsight.

There are, to some extent, best practices for dealing with protests.  The police in Ferguson, Missouri, for example, were criticized by other law enforcement for their blatant attempt to intimidate the initial protests--in all probability that created avoidable escalation.  Knowledgeable experts are probably going to cite the Capitol Hill police for the opposite mistake, once they've had time for a proper postmortem.  They should have at least has more back-up in place in case efforts not to provoke the protestors failed.

Personally I do believe that property damage, public or private, should lead to arrests.  So should rock and bottle throwing, etc. aimed at injuring police officers.  It's often forgotten that scores of police officers were injured in last year's BLM protests.  Whenever protestors do things like that, whether they feel "provoked" or not, they've crossed the line into rioting.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Descartes on January 08, 2021, 10:36:50 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:45:31 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 08:34:23 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 08:30:12 AM


There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.

In a word, bullshit. The police were overwhelmed on Wednesday. There was miscalculation and unperprepareness. One of them is in critical condition today. I bet his wife would have something to say to people who claim the police let them in intentionally.


Bullshit. This was planned in the open, for days (weeks?) in advance. The BLM protests, on the other hand, were mostly spontaneous.

And even if they were just incompetent and caught off-guard, their eventual response was awfully kind. How many people were arrested, again? How many people gassed, how many skulls and bones cracked? How many litres of gas were used, and how many rubber bullets fired? How many police vehicles rammed the crowd? How many people were escorted off the premises and allowed to go on their merry way? How many people were snatched off the street and put into unmarked vehicles by masked and unidentifiable law enforcement officials in camo?

Are you kidding me? 

I saw the police tear gassing them, punching them, and a cop actually shot and killed a woman breaching the private part of the chambers through a broken window.

Also, the arrests are just beginning.  When we had BLM riots in my city, by the end of the night I think only something like 5 or 6 people had actually been arrested. 

It's just not true that there was so much more restraint here compared to BLM riots.

And for the record - I thought the cops should have shot the BLM rioters and I wish they would have shot (more) of these too. (Well, what I really mean is, it should be completely legal and a best practice for them to do it.)  Rioting is rioting.  It's a straw man argument that people are only in favor of that and prosecutions when it's black people doing it.  Lock all of these up with long prison terms!
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 11:24:20 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 08, 2021, 10:27:53 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 06:12:10 AM
The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?

This thread has predictably turned into an instant slanging match between our resident radicals,  but I thought it could use at least one honest response to an honest question.

For law enforcement in rioting, there are no good solutions.  A "robust" response will likely lead to injuries and possibly deaths among protestors and police, as has happened just now in Washington.  Then again, if the police hold off in hopes of not escalating the situation, things can get out of hand and they will be blamed for that. 

We see this damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dynamic with the Capitol Hill police.  They're being roundly condemned for not making a strong enough initial display of force to deter the rioters from rioting in the first place.  That's an obvious failure, and it may indeed be the case that they would have had a different response had this been a BLM protest.  But that's a hindsight judgement.  At the time they probably feared that a display of that sort may have provoked exactly the kind of violence that they were hoping to deter.  And they may well have been right.  We'll never know now.  At any rate, this was pretty much a no-win situation for them.

There just aren't any easy answers.  Every potentially violent protest situation is different, and every one requires its own judgement calls.  In the event of violence, any and all decisions made by law enforcement will be picked apart in hindsight.

There are, to some extent, best practices for dealing with protests.  The police in Ferguson, Missouri, for example, were criticized by other law enforcement for their blatant attempt to intimidate the initial protests--in all probability that created avoidable escalation.  Knowledgeable experts are probably going to cite the Capitol Hill police for the opposite mistake, once they've had time for a proper postmortem.  They should have at least has more back-up in place in case efforts not to provoke the protestors failed.

Personally I do believe that property damage, public or private, should lead to arrests.  So should rock and bottle throwing, etc. aimed at injuring police officers.  It's often forgotten that scores of police officers were injured in last year's BLM protests.  Whenever protestors do things like that, whether they feel "provoked" or not, they've crossed the line into rioting.

Thanks for that measured response. The reason I started this is that civil society relies on people accepting rules that apply to everyone. Especially in an academic crowd, this shouldn't need explanation. This was a chance for people who support BLM but are upset about the recent violence to express principles which would apply in both of those cases, based on a universal idea of what is appropriate.

Sadly, the main response seems to be "Those two are different; PERIOD."
Which just amplifies the polarization in society by suggesting each group gets to make up their own rules which they get to impose on everyone else whenever they're in power.

A person's character is much more evident in what restrictions they will accept having placed on them than on what restrictions they want to place on others.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 11:24:20 AM

Thanks for that measured response. The reason I started this is that civil society relies on people accepting rules that apply to everyone. Especially in an academic crowd, this shouldn't need explanation. This was a chance for people who support BLM but are upset about the recent violence to express principles which would apply in both of those cases, based on a universal idea of what is appropriate.

Sadly, the main response seems to be "Those two are different; PERIOD."
Which just amplifies the polarization in society by suggesting each group gets to make up their own rules which they get to impose on everyone else whenever they're in power.

A person's character is much more evident in what restrictions they will accept having placed on them than on what restrictions they want to place on others.

The wokelings on the thread think, pretend, or imply, that your initial question was passive aggressive. Which really conveys to me something else, the reluctance to come to workable agreement.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: clean on January 08, 2021, 12:39:03 PM
QuoteAll violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

I believe that the phrase (from the 60s by the Miami Chief of Police, not Trump) is "When the looting starts, the shooting starts".

For what it is worth, I am glad that the Capital is not riddled with bullets. It is enough that this 'failure' occurred without the reminder, for centuries, of bullet holes in the marble of the building.  The damage can be repaired. The ones that can be identified as being in the building illegally can and should be tracked down, tried and sentenced.

I would like to hope that the ones looting during the BLM protests would likewise have their pictures posted, rewards offered for identification be arrested, tried and sentenced for their thefts and damage to property.

I fear that IF shop owners were encouraged to shoot looters, that extreme looters would shoot the owners first and then lead the rest to loot.  So in addition to property damage, even more lives would be lost and the journey to Mad Max land would be further along.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 12:39:03 PM
QuoteAll violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

I believe that the phrase (from the 60s by the Miami Chief of Police, not Trump) is "When the looting starts, the shooting starts".

For what it is worth, I am glad that the Capital is not riddled with bullets. It is enough that this 'failure' occurred without the reminder, for centuries, of bullet holes in the marble of the building.  The damage can be repaired. The ones that can be identified as being in the building illegally can and should be tracked down, tried and sentenced.

I would like to hope that the ones looting during the BLM protests would likewise have their pictures posted, rewards offered for identification be arrested, tried and sentenced for their thefts and damage to property.

I fear that IF shop owners were encouraged to shoot looters, that extreme looters would shoot the owners first and then lead the rest to loot.  So in addition to property damage, even more lives would be lost and the journey to Mad Max land would be further along.

It was thought that some kind of tactical practical thought process like that was used in Boston. They let the cop car get torched, figuring they were containing the mayhem to small more manageable area, watchable area. Whereas trying to sweep the area of all demonstrators (et al) would have likely spread the mayhem in directions that would have been harder to contain, harder to watch and might have had more hazards present. They had to plan several moves ahead. To this layperson it seems reasonable to suppose that the police have to make tough choices like those 'in the moment'. That's different from someone saying, weeks later (you certainly have not said this, which I appreciate) 'destruction of property is no big deal,' which means, really, rule of law is ours to follow, or not, as we prefer. The best thing one could say about that would be 'incredibly stupid.' If you could round up people who circulate those ideas, I would consider doing it. Of course one may say 'I got maimed and crippled for life when an overturned car fell on me during a mostly peaceful protest against the George Floyd incident, but it was for a good cause.' It's a free country and one has the right be a certain kind of lunatic.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 08, 2021, 02:03:47 PM
Quote from: Descartes on January 08, 2021, 10:36:50 AM


Are you kidding me? 

I saw the police tear gassing them, punching them, and a cop actually shot and killed a woman breaching the private part of the chambers through a broken window.

Also, the arrests are just beginning.  When we had BLM riots in my city, by the end of the night I think only something like 5 or 6 people had actually been arrested. 

It's just not true that there was so much more restraint here compared to BLM riots.

And for the record - I thought the cops should have shot the BLM rioters and I wish they would have shot (more) of these too. (Well, what I really mean is, it should be completely legal and a best practice for them to do it.)  Rioting is rioting.  It's a straw man argument that people are only in favor of that and prosecutions when it's black people doing it.  Lock all of these up with long prison terms!

She was shot INSIDE the Capitol after breaking in. The gassing was also on people who had broken in.

I saw one punch, when someone was knocking guards to the ground.

Did you not notice there were no long line of police in riot gear, with batons, gassing and macing the giant crowd surrounding the building and on the steps? Did you not see the bearded man breaking a window with a shield about an hour and a half after the building was under siege with no police around him?

Contrast that with citizens on the street having all that done to them this summer. Suggesting the response this time was equivalent is just bizarre.

The response has not been equivalent several times. Recall folks with weapons storming in to the statehouses in Michigan and Idaho. The differences in responses are obvious to everyone except those in complete denial.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: lightning on January 08, 2021, 03:13:29 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 10:14:28 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 08, 2021, 09:40:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 09:20:42 AM

. . .

How is it "whataboutism" to say that all violent protest should be dealt with summarily? The Jan. 6 rioters don't deserve any more sympathy than anyone else involved in that kind of violent rioting.

It should be obvious.

But if you need an example, look what happened with the thread that you started. It sucked part of the fora into defending BLM protests, instead of keeping the focus on Trump, Republicans, MAGA, ....

It only "sucked part of the fora into defending BLM protests" inasmuch as they felt the need to defend BLM protests. Anyone willing to renounce violent protests for any cause are free to be as explicit as they want about the Jan. 6 events. 

Trying to make two different sets of rules is always going to be more complicated than making one set of rules to be applied consistently.

It looks like we can find common ground with a statement where we can both agree. Handling big riots are complicated, yes. We can agree with that, also.

So, let's start a simple application of the statement where we find common ground:

Let's start with the simplest of scenarios.

If a 12-year-old African American boy, at an urban playground, points his toy gun at a cop, the cop will apply the same rule of engagement as if it were a white 12-year-old boy, at a suburban playground, pointing his toy gun at the cop.

Easy peasy, yes?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 05:25:39 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 08, 2021, 02:03:47 PM
Quote from: Descartes on January 08, 2021, 10:36:50 AM


Are you kidding me? 

I saw the police tear gassing them, punching them, and a cop actually shot and killed a woman breaching the private part of the chambers through a broken window.

Also, the arrests are just beginning.  When we had BLM riots in my city, by the end of the night I think only something like 5 or 6 people had actually been arrested. 

It's just not true that there was so much more restraint here compared to BLM riots.

And for the record - I thought the cops should have shot the BLM rioters and I wish they would have shot (more) of these too. (Well, what I really mean is, it should be completely legal and a best practice for them to do it.)  Rioting is rioting.  It's a straw man argument that people are only in favor of that and prosecutions when it's black people doing it.  Lock all of these up with long prison terms!

She was shot INSIDE the Capitol after breaking in. The gassing was also on people who had broken in.

I saw one punch, when someone was knocking guards to the ground.

Did you not notice there were no long line of police in riot gear, with batons, gassing and macing the giant crowd surrounding the building and on the steps? Did you not see the bearded man breaking a window with a shield about an hour and a half after the building was under siege with no police around him?

Contrast that with citizens on the street having all that done to them this summer. Suggesting the response this time was equivalent is just bizarre.

The response has not been equivalent several times. Recall folks with weapons storming in to the statehouses in Michigan and Idaho. The differences in responses are obvious to everyone except those in complete denial.

Let's see what things are like in preparation for the inauguration, now that we've had a better look at the lay of the land.
I believe it would be hard for most of us here to speculate about how much security should have been there Wednesday, given that nothing like this has ever happened before.
As for the summer, of course if one anticipates not only a demonstrating group but also a counter demonstrating group then that's another thing for law enforcement to try and prepare for. Protecting the peaceful demonstrators. But it's not something I could assess very well yet. You do have to have police with all the equipment because, who knows when you show up to a mostly peaceful demonstration, that a mostly peaceful demonstration could break out!
What is the head butting about here anyway? Can't we agree that you should have the personnel you need, and learn from the mistakes that were made?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Cheerful on January 08, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
nevermind, deleted
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: ergative on January 09, 2021, 01:16:02 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 08, 2021, 09:25:10 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 08, 2021, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 08, 2021, 09:08:24 AM
QuoteAlso: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal.

It's no myth that people on the left, democratic voters, do not want to prosecute all of the guilty rioters. Para just admitted it. As well as no interest in the difference between accidentally knocking over a public wastebasket because people are pressing against you and it couldn't be helped versus smashing windows so you can steal. And then getting defended in the media for seeking restitution for debts owed because of slavery.

Broken property can be replaced. It's not the kind of crime that merits a response resulting in loss of life or limb.


By that standard, bombing empty buildings is no big deal.

It isn't a very big deal when nobody is hurt or put in danger, no. It's not a good thing, obviously, but it's also nowhere near as big a deal as actually hurting someone.


Case in point: big collective national yawn at the bombing on Christmas day that leveled a block of Nashville and disrupted telecommunications, but didn't hurt anyone because the buildings were empty.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 04:48:35 AM
I don't know why people are equating this event with BLM (well, I have an idea).  In the BLM protests we saw protests that sometimes turned violent.  In this case, you had a group of of "protestors" that stormed your capital building while it was full of your government officials.  These are not the same, and I find it crazy that there was not a stronger response. 

If the security forces didn't see this potentially happening, they were not doing their job.  I find it remarkable that a rag tag group of protesters would be allowed to breach the security of what should be one of the most well protected buildings in your country. 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Here's a strategic question for you Marxists.  When Comma-Luh implies in a tweet that the Capitol rioters were not tear-gassed*, is she aware that there are numerous videos of Capitol rioters being tear-gassed?  Is she stupid, or does she think we're stupid?  Also, if there's really so much racism out there, why are people constantly having to make up instances of racism?

*"We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer."
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: apl68 on January 09, 2021, 06:29:43 AM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 12:39:03 PM
I fear that IF shop owners were encouraged to shoot looters, that extreme looters would shoot the owners first and then lead the rest to loot.  So in addition to property damage, even more lives would be lost and the journey to Mad Max land would be further along.

Yes.  The very last thing we need is to encourage vigilante response to rioting.  That would be another dangerous escalation.

As horrifying as the riots of the past 12 months have been, it's really extraordinary that the loss of life hasn't been considerably worse.  That tells me that all of the parties involved--law enforcement, would-be citizen vigilantes, and the majority of BOTH blocs of protestors--have been using more restraint than they've been credited with.  Parasaurolphus pointed out above that the great majority of BLM demonstrations did not lead to rioting.  The same holds true for the great majority of right-wing protests as well.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 09, 2021, 06:29:43 AM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 12:39:03 PM
I fear that IF shop owners were encouraged to shoot looters, that extreme looters would shoot the owners first and then lead the rest to loot.  So in addition to property damage, even more lives would be lost and the journey to Mad Max land would be further along.

Yes.  The very last thing we need is to encourage vigilante response to rioting.  That would be another dangerous escalation.

As horrifying as the riots of the past 12 months have been, it's really extraordinary that the loss of life hasn't been considerably worse.  That tells me that all of the parties involved--law enforcement, would-be citizen vigilantes, and the majority of BOTH blocs of protestors--have been using more restraint than they've been credited with.  Parasaurolphus pointed out above that the great majority of BLM demonstrations did not lead to rioting.  The same holds true for the great majority of right-wing protests as well.

My gut feeling (I'd love to hear from any sociologistsor psychologists who can confirm or deny) is that riots collect a lot of people who just want to break stuff and/or steal stuff. So the real angry zealots who are willing to face getting arrested or worse are a relatively small part of the crowd. (Think of all the people taking selfies of themselves rioting and posting them online; clearly it's more about the "excitement" of the event than the political cause behind it.)

I imagine the riots with lots of bloodshed have a higher proportion of zealots.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: apl68 on January 09, 2021, 07:35:31 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 09, 2021, 06:29:43 AM
Quote from: clean on January 08, 2021, 12:39:03 PM
I fear that IF shop owners were encouraged to shoot looters, that extreme looters would shoot the owners first and then lead the rest to loot.  So in addition to property damage, even more lives would be lost and the journey to Mad Max land would be further along.

Yes.  The very last thing we need is to encourage vigilante response to rioting.  That would be another dangerous escalation.

As horrifying as the riots of the past 12 months have been, it's really extraordinary that the loss of life hasn't been considerably worse.  That tells me that all of the parties involved--law enforcement, would-be citizen vigilantes, and the majority of BOTH blocs of protestors--have been using more restraint than they've been credited with.  Parasaurolphus pointed out above that the great majority of BLM demonstrations did not lead to rioting.  The same holds true for the great majority of right-wing protests as well.

My gut feeling (I'd love to hear from any sociologistsor psychologists who can confirm or deny) is that riots collect a lot of people who just want to break stuff and/or steal stuff. So the real angry zealots who are willing to face getting arrested or worse are a relatively small part of the crowd. (Think of all the people taking selfies of themselves rioting and posting them online; clearly it's more about the "excitement" of the event than the political cause behind it.)

I imagine the riots with lots of bloodshed have a higher proportion of zealots.

That may be a factor, but I doubt it's as simple as that.  Unwise escalation or panic by the authorities is often responsible for much of the bloodshed at a riot.  Like the Boston Massacre, where rioters pelting a detachment of soldiers panicked them into firing into the crowd.  Then you have murder riots where members of a particular ethnicity or religion are deliberately targeted for mass murder.  We have some frightful examples of that in our own history, and they still happen often in other parts of the world. 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 09:33:34 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Here's a strategic question for you Marxists.  When Comma-Luh implies in a tweet that the Capitol rioters were not tear-gassed*, is she aware that there are numerous videos of Capitol rioters being tear-gassed?  Is she stupid, or does she think we're stupid?  Also, if there's really so much racism out there, why are people constantly having to make up instances of racism?

*"We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer."

Darn good questions. I have a friend on FB who appears to be unable to discuss this week's events without insisting everything we've been through is about racism. This is mania, and it has become common. This is professional health care worker with expensive college education. (!) The idea is, the bogeyman of unacknowledged, as yet unrecognized racism is lurking everywhere and threatens to outpace our efforts to spot him. Very similar to the communism phobia of McCarthyism.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2021, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 09:33:34 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Here's a strategic question for you Marxists.  When Comma-Luh implies in a tweet that the Capitol rioters were not tear-gassed*, is she aware that there are numerous videos of Capitol rioters being tear-gassed?  Is she stupid, or does she think we're stupid?  Also, if there's really so much racism out there, why are people constantly having to make up instances of racism?

*"We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer."

Darn good questions. I have a friend on FB who appears to be unable to discuss this week's events without insisting everything we've been through is about racism. This is mania, and it has become common. This is professional health care worker with expensive college education. (!) The idea is, the bogeyman of unacknowledged, as yet unrecognized racism is lurking everywhere and threatens to outpace our efforts to spot him. Very similar to the communism phobia of McCarthyism.

Kind of like you two: Unable to discuss this week's events without irrelevant references to BLM or the left. This thread as one of several examples.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: ergative on January 09, 2021, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2021, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Here's a strategic question for you Marxists.  When Comma-Luh implies in a tweet that the Capitol rioters were not tear-gassed*, is she aware that there are numerous videos of Capitol rioters being tear-gassed?  Is she stupid, or does she think we're stupid?  Also, if there's really so much racism out there, why are people constantly having to make up instances of racism?

*"We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer."

I stated much the same thing. They were gassed inside the building, the night before, and several hours after it all began. My frustration is and was with the lack of response at the beginning, which was the result of seriously poor planning. A Politico story asserts that the Capitol Police have over 2,000 personnel and a budget of over $460,000,000. Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 11:20:35 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2021, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 09:33:34 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Here's a strategic question for you Marxists.  When Comma-Luh implies in a tweet that the Capitol rioters were not tear-gassed*, is she aware that there are numerous videos of Capitol rioters being tear-gassed?  Is she stupid, or does she think we're stupid?  Also, if there's really so much racism out there, why are people constantly having to make up instances of racism?

*"We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer."

Darn good questions. I have a friend on FB who appears to be unable to discuss this week's events without insisting everything we've been through is about racism. This is mania, and it has become common. This is professional health care worker with expensive college education. (!) The idea is, the bogeyman of unacknowledged, as yet unrecognized racism is lurking everywhere and threatens to outpace our efforts to spot him. Very similar to the communism phobia of McCarthyism.

Kind of like you two: Unable to discuss this week's events without irrelevant references to BLM or the left. This thread as one of several examples.

Well, how about if Marshwiggle had posed the question this way: 'what do you suppose are the thought processes of law enforcement with regard to responding to rioting? And what if any will be the effect on their thought processes of the events in 2020 and 2021 going forward?' The questions he posed may be taken as an effort to equate the scenarios.  Jan 6 and summer 2020. But irrespective of posters and their sensibility the police, state attorneys general, governors, et al will certainly be talking about this among themselves. What should they be thinking about, in your view? We pay their salaries.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2021, 10:46:33 AM
Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2021, 10:46:33 AM
Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?

So what the law enforcement people should do is enforce the law not equally, but anti-racistly. We may be seeing such things in the near future. Keep an eye on the cabinet appointments.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 01:38:09 PM
Quote from: ergative on January 09, 2021, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 02:37:16 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2021, 10:46:33 AM
Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building. 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 01:38:09 PM
Quote from: ergative on January 09, 2021, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?

Sure, but most of us grew out of making fun of people's names as a form of argument around grade 2 or so.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 05:33:08 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 02:37:16 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2021, 10:46:33 AM
Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building.

If you're going to have training and protocols for law enforcement for dealing with situations like "rioting", to be any use it has to be universal. Even if that involves categorizing different threat levels, it still can't be subject to some sort of political manipulation in the moment. (Obviously, since if the President may actually be inciting the riot, having any politician make the call is a bad idea. Their rules HAVE TO BE non-political.)
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: dismalist on January 09, 2021, 05:55:58 PM
Following Einstein that explanations should be as simple as possible, but no simpler :-), attributing an inappropriate response to Capitol rioting as racism is not the simplest possible explanation. A much simpler one is incompetence. From a WSJ article:

QuoteAs rioters stormed the Capitol, the numerous federal and local agencies that police the nation's capital produced a flood of urgent communications, but they struggled to sort through lines of command and coordinate a forceful response to the assault spiraling beyond their control.

Not different form the CDC and the FDA. It's pervasive. Constructed and willed by Congress.

The article is here https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-capitol-riot-communications-between-agencies-hampered-forceful-response-11610242709 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-capitol-riot-communications-between-agencies-hampered-forceful-response-11610242709)
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Langue_doc on January 09, 2021, 06:17:59 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 01:38:09 PM
Quote from: ergative on January 09, 2021, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?

Sure, but most of us grew out of making fun of people's names as a form of argument around grade 2 or so.

I found this needless ridiculing of someone's name because of either their ethnicity or their ancestors coming from another part of the world to be rather distressing not only because those of us who work in large metropolitan areas have students and colleagues--faculty and non-faculty whose names are far more difficult to pronounce than the name "Kamala", but also because this would be disrespectful to fellow forumites some of whose real names might also be difficult to pronounce. Disagreeing with a politician's position or policies is part of the democratic process, but ridiculing anyone's name just because they are from another part of the world suggests that such ridicule extends to others of the same ethnicity as well as to people from other countries with non-English names.

On the first day of class I make sure that I have the correct pronunciation for all the students' names and write down the pronunciation alongside the names on the roster. I can think of numerous students, colleagues, some administrative assistants, and IT support technicians (the people who rush to your classroom when you call in despair in the middle of class to fix the internet problems on the computer) whose names could easily be ridiculed. It behooves us as professionals, academics, and above all human beings to treat people whose names and ethnicities are different from ours with respect, especially on this forum.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 05:33:08 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 02:37:16 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2021, 10:46:33 AM
Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building.

If you're going to have training and protocols for law enforcement for dealing with situations like "rioting", to be any use it has to be universal. Even if that involves categorizing different threat levels, it still can't be subject to some sort of political manipulation in the moment. (Obviously, since if the President may actually be inciting the riot, having any politician make the call is a bad idea. Their rules HAVE TO BE non-political.)

Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 07:29:20 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2021, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 09:33:34 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Here's a strategic question for you Marxists.  When Comma-Luh implies in a tweet that the Capitol rioters were not tear-gassed*, is she aware that there are numerous videos of Capitol rioters being tear-gassed?  Is she stupid, or does she think we're stupid?  Also, if there's really so much racism out there, why are people constantly having to make up instances of racism?

*"We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer."

Darn good questions. I have a friend on FB who appears to be unable to discuss this week's events without insisting everything we've been through is about racism. This is mania, and it has become common. This is professional health care worker with expensive college education. (!) The idea is, the bogeyman of unacknowledged, as yet unrecognized racism is lurking everywhere and threatens to outpace our efforts to spot him. Very similar to the communism phobia of McCarthyism.

Kind of like you two: Unable to discuss this week's events without irrelevant references to BLM or the left. This thread as one of several examples.

Another response for this:

Are you by any chance watching CNN? They just had Sheila Jackson on. She gave a several minute interview where she agreed with the republican congressman who said 'Presidential Trump has committed an impeachable offense. I don't know what kind of impeachment document the democrats will hand us, but as long as it's not politicized it can easily be supported.' (I thought; why did he have to make that stipulation? It's a fairly staightforward situation. the megalomaniac is pissed that he lost, and he's trying to get the more emotional thinking among his following to overthrow by feeding them lies. Everyone's looking at the same thing. Who's gonna politicize this? I soon found out.)
Jackson gave him credit for putting principle over party, gave a brief sober account of what DJT has done recently that threatens the nation, and almost made it to the end before gratuitously making a dig at white people. 'We cannot tolerate white aggression...blah blah...' Then seemed to catch herself and reel it back in. Forgetting, perhaps, that most of the targets of the violent assault are white people who risked their lives that day to do the work they're hired for.

I am just an adjunct professor commenting on a forum. I am not directing public discussion in the media. These race hustler politicians are the people you vote in. If you're tired of having us point out when they seem unable to process discernible life events without playing the race card, you could stop sending them to Washington.

She's probably on a reparations kick. Well played, congresswomxn.

Incidentally, if Kimberly Klacik sides with Trump this time, I'm all done with her.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 05:14:08 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 05:33:08 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 02:37:16 PM

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building.

If you're going to have training and protocols for law enforcement for dealing with situations like "rioting", to be any use it has to be universal. Even if that involves categorizing different threat levels, it still can't be subject to some sort of political manipulation in the moment. (Obviously, since if the President may actually be inciting the riot, having any politician make the call is a bad idea. Their rules HAVE TO BE non-political.)

Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

Different resources for security don't necessarily affect what kind of response is prescribed. Should smashing windows and breaking down doors to enter a public building ever be, by default, something to just allow unopposed? And if there are situations where measures like tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. are appropriate, surely it shouldn't be allowed to vary by city, neighborhood, or the composition of the crowd. Those are the definition or discrimination.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: spork on January 10, 2021, 05:30:36 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 09, 2021, 06:17:59 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 01:38:09 PM
Quote from: ergative on January 09, 2021, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?

Sure, but most of us grew out of making fun of people's names as a form of argument around grade 2 or so.

I found this needless ridiculing of someone's name because of either their ethnicity or their ancestors coming from another part of the world to be rather distressing not only because those of us who work in large metropolitan areas have students and colleagues--faculty and non-faculty whose names are far more difficult to pronounce than the name "Kamala", but also because this would be disrespectful to fellow forumites some of whose real names might also be difficult to pronounce. Disagreeing with a politician's position or policies is part of the democratic process, but ridiculing anyone's name just because they are from another part of the world suggests that such ridicule extends to others of the same ethnicity as well as to people from other countries with non-English names.

On the first day of class I make sure that I have the correct pronunciation for all the students' names and write down the pronunciation alongside the names on the roster. I can think of numerous students, colleagues, some administrative assistants, and IT support technicians (the people who rush to your classroom when you call in despair in the middle of class to fix the internet problems on the computer) whose names could easily be ridiculed. It behooves us as professionals, academics, and above all human beings to treat people whose names and ethnicities are different from ours with respect, especially on this forum.

Thank you. On my small campus, the only significant ethnic and religious diversity comes from people who were not born in the USA, including my wife. Pronouncing people's names correctly, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, is a very low bar for civility and professionalism.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 07:00:53 AM
Quote from: spork on January 10, 2021, 05:30:36 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 09, 2021, 06:17:59 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 01:38:09 PM
Quote from: ergative on January 09, 2021, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?

Sure, but most of us grew out of making fun of people's names as a form of argument around grade 2 or so.

I found this needless ridiculing of someone's name because of either their ethnicity or their ancestors coming from another part of the world to be rather distressing not only because those of us who work in large metropolitan areas have students and colleagues--faculty and non-faculty whose names are far more difficult to pronounce than the name "Kamala", but also because this would be disrespectful to fellow forumites some of whose real names might also be difficult to pronounce. Disagreeing with a politician's position or policies is part of the democratic process, but ridiculing anyone's name just because they are from another part of the world suggests that such ridicule extends to others of the same ethnicity as well as to people from other countries with non-English names.

On the first day of class I make sure that I have the correct pronunciation for all the students' names and write down the pronunciation alongside the names on the roster. I can think of numerous students, colleagues, some administrative assistants, and IT support technicians (the people who rush to your classroom when you call in despair in the middle of class to fix the internet problems on the computer) whose names could easily be ridiculed. It behooves us as professionals, academics, and above all human beings to treat people whose names and ethnicities are different from ours with respect, especially on this forum.

Thank you. On my small campus, the only significant ethnic and religious diversity comes from people who were not born in the USA, including my wife. Pronouncing people's names correctly, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, is a very low bar for civility and professionalism.

How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: hungry_ghost on January 10, 2021, 07:04:42 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 08, 2021, 06:14:04 AM
All violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

As someone who has witnessed such a situation and the ensuing carnage in a country other than the USA, I will simply say that you have no idea what you're asking for.

I value human life. Do you?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 10, 2021, 07:09:18 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 05:14:08 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 07:22:36 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2021, 05:33:08 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 02:37:16 PM

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building.

If you're going to have training and protocols for law enforcement for dealing with situations like "rioting", to be any use it has to be universal. Even if that involves categorizing different threat levels, it still can't be subject to some sort of political manipulation in the moment. (Obviously, since if the President may actually be inciting the riot, having any politician make the call is a bad idea. Their rules HAVE TO BE non-political.)

Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

Different resources for security don't necessarily affect what kind of response is prescribed. Should smashing windows and breaking down doors to enter a public building ever be, by default, something to just allow unopposed? And if there are situations where measures like tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. are appropriate, surely it shouldn't be allowed to vary by city, neighborhood, or the composition of the crowd. Those are the definition or discrimination.

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library. 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 07:34:59 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 07:00:53 AM


How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.

You're ridiculing a particular woman's name because she's Black and not on your political side. That's different from using her name generically to stand in for a particular kind of behaviour you think is problematic but ultimately paradigmatically associated with her.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 08:24:00 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 07:34:59 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 07:00:53 AM


How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.

You're ridiculing a particular woman's name because she's Black and not on your political side. That's different from using her name generically to stand in for a particular kind of behaviour you think is problematic but ultimately paradigmatically associated with her.

OK. But henceforth I will refer to racist Caucasian women as Professor Parasaurolophus. I have friends named Karen and you know, we need to get along. One of them is black. So you see, that doesn't work.

on edit: I do agree that an individual's name is their property and it's their right to have you pronounce it right.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 08:37:39 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 07:29:20 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 09, 2021, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 09, 2021, 09:33:34 AM
Quote from: writingprof on January 09, 2021, 06:25:33 AM
Here's a strategic question for you Marxists.  When Comma-Luh implies in a tweet that the Capitol rioters were not tear-gassed*, is she aware that there are numerous videos of Capitol rioters being tear-gassed?  Is she stupid, or does she think we're stupid?  Also, if there's really so much racism out there, why are people constantly having to make up instances of racism?

*"We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer."

Darn good questions. I have a friend on FB who appears to be unable to discuss this week's events without insisting everything we've been through is about racism. This is mania, and it has become common. This is professional health care worker with expensive college education. (!) The idea is, the bogeyman of unacknowledged, as yet unrecognized racism is lurking everywhere and threatens to outpace our efforts to spot him. Very similar to the communism phobia of McCarthyism.

Kind of like you two: Unable to discuss this week's events without irrelevant references to BLM or the left. This thread as one of several examples.

Another response for this:

Are you by any chance watching CNN? They just had Sheila Jackson on. She gave a several minute interview where she agreed with the republican congressman who said 'Presidential Trump has committed an impeachable offense. I don't know what kind of impeachment document the democrats will hand us, but as long as it's not politicized it can easily be supported.' (I thought; why did he have to make that stipulation? It's a fairly staightforward situation. the megalomaniac is pissed that he lost, and he's trying to get the more emotional thinking among his following to overthrow by feeding them lies. Everyone's looking at the same thing. Who's gonna politicize this? I soon found out.)
Jackson gave him credit for putting principle over party, gave a brief sober account of what DJT has done recently that threatens the nation, and almost made it to the end before gratuitously making a dig at white people. 'We cannot tolerate white aggression...blah blah...' Then seemed to catch herself and reel it back in. Forgetting, perhaps, that most of the targets of the violent assault are white people who risked their lives that day to do the work they're hired for.

I am just an adjunct professor commenting on a forum. I am not directing public discussion in the media. These race hustler politicians are the people you vote in. If you're tired of having us point out when they seem unable to process discernible life events without playing the race card, you could stop sending them to Washington.

She's probably on a reparations kick. Well played, congresswomxn.

Incidentally, if Kimberly Klacik sides with Trump this time, I'm all done with her.

First of all, what do you mean the people "you" vote in?  I didn't vote for that person. 

Second, you are the very thing you are so upset about: You make everything about race and racism. If Trump set of a nuclear war, your response would be a post about BLM.

Third, and most importantly, the President and the Republicans have played the race card unendingly, ginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America. This predates Trump, and has actually been the defining feature of the party since it started the Southern strategy. Seems to me that Republicans have the much more destructive weaponization of race. So why aren't you upset about those race hustlers?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Langue_doc on January 10, 2021, 08:43:49 AM
Forumites, let's not get personal.

I too find it problematic that the name "Karen" is used to ridicule and stigmatize entitled women of a certain skin color. I know several Karens, all of them Caucasians, who are the opposite of the Central Park Karen.

As for pronouncing names correctly, we can only try to approximate the correct pronunciation. However hard I try, I cannot pronounce tones let alone hear them. It's the ridiculing that I find problematic as well as offensive, not the accented pronunciations.

ETA: This is a response to mahagonny's post just above.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 08:58:03 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 10, 2021, 08:43:49 AM
Forumites, let's not get personal.

I too find it problematic that the name "Karen" is used to ridicule and stigmatize entitled women of a certain skin color. I know several Karens, all of them Caucasians, who are the opposite of the Central Park Karen.

As for pronouncing names correctly, we can only try to approximate the correct pronunciation. However hard I try, I cannot pronounce tones let alone hear them. It's the ridiculing that I find problematic as well as offensive, not the accented pronunciations.

ETA: This is a response to mahagonny's post just above.

Interesting stories, perhaps:
A colleague just retired at work. He was one of those who was always there at white privilege and systemic racism discussions with bells on, searching his psyche for latent racism, striking a blow for the Black American, so he thought. Another time I over heard him and friend cracking each other up because one of them had a Japanese student named 'Yusuke' which they thought sounded like 'you suck.'

Some years ago I was working in London. My British friend Dave was just bristling with anger at white folks on the television that he thought were fascists. I don't know if they were or not. All I could see at the time was an interviewer asking them 'why won't you renounce white supremacy? Why not, why not?' and them responding 'why do I get singled out for this question? What have I done?'
The next day Dave was telling Irishman jokes. 'Why is an Irishman like a hemorrhoid? Because...they're a pain in the ass, but they're OK if they stay up there where they belong.'
Human beings are funny people.

QuoteThird, and most importantly, the President and the Republicans have played the race card unendingly, ginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America. This predates Trump, and has actually been the defining feature of the party since it started the Southern strategy. Seems to me that Republicans have the much more destructive weaponization of race. So why aren't you upset about those race hustlers?

The republicans I like are talking more about individualism and the need to stress what we are capable of individually and together, rather than fixating on government catering to special interest demands.

Quoteginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America.

White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 08:58:03 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 10, 2021, 08:43:49 AM
Forumites, let's not get personal.

I too find it problematic that the name "Karen" is used to ridicule and stigmatize entitled women of a certain skin color. I know several Karens, all of them Caucasians, who are the opposite of the Central Park Karen.

As for pronouncing names correctly, we can only try to approximate the correct pronunciation. However hard I try, I cannot pronounce tones let alone hear them. It's the ridiculing that I find problematic as well as offensive, not the accented pronunciations.

ETA: This is a response to mahagonny's post just above.

Interesting stories, perhaps:
A colleague just retired at work. He was one of those who was always there at white privilege and systemic racism discussions with bells on, searching his psyche for latent racism, striking a blow for the Black American, so he thought. Another time I over heard him and friend cracking each other up because one of them had a Japanese student named 'Yusuke' which they thought sounded like 'you suck.'

Some years ago I was working in London. My British friend Dave was just bristling with anger at white folks on the television that he thought were fascists. I don't know if they were or not. All I could see at the time was an interviewer asking them 'why won't you renounce white supremacy? Why not, why not?' and them responding 'why do I get singled out for this question? What have I done?'
The next day Dave was telling Irishman jokes. 'Why is an Irishman like a hemorrhoid? Because...they're a pain in the ass, but they're OK if they stay up there where they belong.'
Human beings are funny people.

QuoteThird, and most importantly, the President and the Republicans have played the race card unendingly, ginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America. This predates Trump, and has actually been the defining feature of the party since it started the Southern strategy. Seems to me that Republicans have the much more destructive weaponization of race. So why aren't you upset about those race hustlers?

The republicans I like are talking more about individualism and the need to stress what we are capable of individually and together, rather than fixating on government catering to special interest demands.

Quoteginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America.

White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.

And if you are an honest actor then you can give a better answer to my question about Republican "race hustling." Why aren't you more upset about the Southern strategy? Why is this sort of race hustling something you choose to ignore? If you can't engage with this side of the conversation productively then you have no credibility to complain about Democrats doing something you think is similar.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 09:40:36 AM
[sigh]....do I have to, when readers here already believe it? OK, here's somewhere to start:

QuoteShow evidence for the bolded.

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2013/07/whos_a_racist_thomas_sowell.html

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 08:24:00 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 07:34:59 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 07:00:53 AM


How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.

You're ridiculing a particular woman's name because she's Black and not on your political side. That's different from using her name generically to stand in for a particular kind of behaviour you think is problematic but ultimately paradigmatically associated with her.

OK. But henceforth I will refer to racist Caucasian women as Professor Parasaurolophus. I have friends named Karen and you know, we need to get along. One of them is black. So you see, that doesn't work.

on edit: I do agree that an individual's name is their property and it's their right to have you pronounce it right.

I mean, if you like, go ahead (although you might find that the caricature works best when it's more firmly grounded in truth, and more widely recognizable). As long as you understand the ways in which the two cases (i.e. Kamala vs. Karen) are different.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 09:48:29 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 09:40:36 AM
[sigh]....do I have to, when readers here already believe it? OK, here's somewhere to start:

QuoteShow evidence for the bolded.

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2013/07/whos_a_racist_thomas_sowell.html

Yes, you do have to show evidence for a claim. Are you actually an academic? Do you tell your students to make claims without providing any well sourced evidence to support them?

Amusingly, this article you shared does not show any evidence that white men are the most disliked. Here is every stat from the article, none of which relate to your claim:


Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 10:02:30 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 08:58:03 AM
White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.


It might be more obvious to say "the one group who it is most OK to criticize, mock, and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. publicly with impunity." The things that can be said publicly about white men would blow up the Internet and the media if they were said about any other group.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 10:05:11 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 08:24:00 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 07:34:59 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 07:00:53 AM


How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.

You're ridiculing a particular woman's name because she's Black and not on your political side. That's different from using her name generically to stand in for a particular kind of behaviour you think is problematic but ultimately paradigmatically associated with her.

OK. But henceforth I will refer to racist Caucasian women as Professor Parasaurolophus. I have friends named Karen and you know, we need to get along. One of them is black. So you see, that doesn't work.

on edit: I do agree that an individual's name is their property and it's their right to have you pronounce it right.

I mean, if you like, go ahead (although you might find that the caricature works best when it's more firmly grounded in truth, and more widely recognizable). As long as you understand the ways in which the two cases (i.e. Kamala vs. Karen) are different.

No, the point is since you're into character assassination, to be fair to everyone, you get a turn.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 10:13:24 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 10, 2021, 07:09:18 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 05:14:08 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 07:22:36 PM


Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

Different resources for security don't necessarily affect what kind of response is prescribed. Should smashing windows and breaking down doors to enter a public building ever be, by default, something to just allow unopposed? And if there are situations where measures like tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. are appropriate, surely it shouldn't be allowed to vary by city, neighborhood, or the composition of the crowd. Those are the definition or discrimination.

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library.

From psychology, it has been firmly established that the best way to incetivize behaviour is with intermittent reinforcement. Thus, the more inconsistent the response is to rioting, the more it encourages rioters. So the fact that some riots get dealt with harshly but some get ignored for a long time means that they are going to be more frequent than if you ignored them all or dealt with them all more harshly. And given the cosrs associated with the damage done, dealing with all more harshly would be much cheaper and less disruptive to communities.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 10:13:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 10:02:30 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 08:58:03 AM
White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.


It might be more obvious to say "the one group who it is most OK to criticize, mock, and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. publicly with impunity." The things that can be said publicly about white men would blow up the Internet and the media if they were said about any other group.

The is not evidence, it is just another claim unaccompanied by supporting data. Show me poll data, or something comparable, to substantiate the claim that whites are the most disliked group. If you don't have data then don't make the claim, or caveat the claim with a disclaimer that you have failed to cite evidence to support it. If this was part of a peer review I'd recommend rejection of your article; if it was a student paper I'd have to dock you points.

This is basic stuff folks.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 10:33:05 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 10:05:11 AM

No, the point is since you're into character assassination, to be fair to everyone, you get a turn.

Oh shit, you've got me bang to rights!
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 10:41:23 AM
Well I'm not going to fret and fume. Cool people will use the term Karen with a wink and a smirk and thus quickly spot each other.
I expect to share our land with a certain number of kooks and bubbleheads. What really does bother me about this is it means while I am pro-union I have nowhere to go but to the republican party. And hope they have the sense to run some good people next time. But the more people who think Aunt Jemima is offensive, but the 'Karen and Becky...[sneer]' is not, the easier it will be for Trump's children to have a future in politics.
I see why the tenure track and their associated hangers-on are so fervent with the white privilege and racism hunting expedition. Part of it is, there are so few blacks on the tenure track, you better appear to be bending over backwards to help, because they can easily come for you.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 10:49:51 AM
Going back to the topic of this thread, here is some actual data driven analysis that speaks to the issues at hand and demonstrates the disproportionate responses police:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polices-tepid-response-to-the-capitol-breach-wasnt-an-aberration/

From the article:

"Between May 1 and November 28, 2020, authorities were more than twice as likely to attempt to break up and disperse a left-wing protest than a right-wing one. And in those situations when law enforcement chose to intervene, they were more likely to use force — 34 percent of the time with right-wing protests compared with 51 percent of the time for the left. Given when this data was collected, it predominantly reflects a difference in how police respond to Black Lives Matter, compared with how they respond to anti-mask demonstrations, pro-Trump extremists, QAnon rallies, and militia groups.

The differences in intervention weren't because BLM protests were particularly violent. ACLED found that 93 percent of the protests associated with BLM were entirely peaceful. "Even if we were to put those percent of demonstrations aside and look purely at peaceful [BLM protests], we are seeing a more heavy handed response [compared with right-wing protests]," Kishi said."


Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 02:07:25 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 10:13:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 10:02:30 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 08:58:03 AM
White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.


It might be more obvious to say "the one group who it is most OK to criticize, mock, and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. publicly with impunity." The things that can be said publicly about white men would blow up the Internet and the media if they were said about any other group.

The is not evidence, it is just another claim unaccompanied by supporting data. Show me poll data, or something comparable, to substantiate the claim that whites are the most disliked group. If you don't have data then don't make the claim, or caveat the claim with a disclaimer that you have failed to cite evidence to support it. If this was part of a peer review I'd recommend rejection of your article; if it was a student paper I'd have to dock you points.

This is basic stuff folks.

Googling "too many white men":

From https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51506733
Quote
'Too many white people in here': race row at US college

From https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/books/review/mediocre-ijeoma-oluo.html
Quote
MEDIOCRE
The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America

Ftom https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-10-07/the-problem-of-surplus-white-men/:
Quote
The problem of America today is the problem of white men.

Who lies at the intersection of guns, right-wing fanaticism, pandemic and climate change denialism? Who ensures that racism continues to course through the lifeblood of the country? Who stands in the way of gender equality? Who supports foreign wars and the military-industrial complex? Who is getting hit hard by the erosion of the manufacturing base in the heartland?

White men.


I could do this all day.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: dismalist on January 10, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Forgot about who pays taxes.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 10, 2021, 02:48:29 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Forgot about who pays taxes.

I forget again: who has the money?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 03:23:00 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 10, 2021, 02:48:29 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Forgot about who pays taxes.

I forget again: who has the money?

Then again, bring back 1960 tax rates and academics with the good jobs will vote republican.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: dismalist on January 10, 2021, 03:27:04 PM
Nobody paid the highest 1960 tax rates. There were tons of tax shelters.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 04:48:30 PM
Caitlin Flanagan is a brilliant writer and far more honest than most progressives, but her new piece at The Atlantic may be the worst drivel that I have ever read. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/worst-revolution-ever/617623/

I ask seriously, is this satire?  Or can Flanagan possibly believe that this exercise in elite self-gratification is helpful?  Note to the Left: At least pretend that your hatred of Trump supporters is ideological rather than aesthetic.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 05:16:46 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 02:07:25 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 10:13:58 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 10:02:30 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 10, 2021, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 08:58:03 AM
White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.


It might be more obvious to say "the one group who it is most OK to criticize, mock, and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. publicly with impunity." The things that can be said publicly about white men would blow up the Internet and the media if they were said about any other group.

The is not evidence, it is just another claim unaccompanied by supporting data. Show me poll data, or something comparable, to substantiate the claim that whites are the most disliked group. If you don't have data then don't make the claim, or caveat the claim with a disclaimer that you have failed to cite evidence to support it. If this was part of a peer review I'd recommend rejection of your article; if it was a student paper I'd have to dock you points.

This is basic stuff folks.

Googling "too many white men":

From https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51506733
Quote
'Too many white people in here': race row at US college

From https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/books/review/mediocre-ijeoma-oluo.html
Quote
MEDIOCRE
The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America

Ftom https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-10-07/the-problem-of-surplus-white-men/:
Quote
The problem of America today is the problem of white men.

Who lies at the intersection of guns, right-wing fanaticism, pandemic and climate change denialism? Who ensures that racism continues to course through the lifeblood of the country? Who stands in the way of gender equality? Who supports foreign wars and the military-industrial complex? Who is getting hit hard by the erosion of the manufacturing base in the heartland?

White men.


I could do this all day.

None of this is data showing that whites are the most disliked group. Do you actually not now the difference between data and a few random op eds?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: dismalist on January 10, 2021, 05:56:12 PM
I think "disliked" as a descriptor of white males is insufficient. What's going on is an attempt at a money grab from white males to be splurged on a rainbow coalition of sorts, minus 10% handling, by the Democratic party. Thus, editorials and such do the job of trying to convince a dislike.

Tax and non-tax policies will reduce the incentive for white males to work. Then tax receipts to pay for the goodies will decline. Let the beneficiaries figure out how to keep the goodies flowing. :-)
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 06:47:26 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 10, 2021, 04:48:30 PM
Caitlin Flanagan is a brilliant writer and far more honest than most progressives, but her new piece at The Atlantic may be the worst drivel that I have ever read. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/worst-revolution-ever/617623/

I ask seriously, is this satire?  Or can Flanagan possibly believe that this exercise in elite self-gratification is helpful?  Note to the Left: At least pretend that your hatred of Trump supporters is ideological rather than aesthetic.

Aside:
But let's not forget that while 70 million voted for Trump only a few thousand at most tried for a violent overthrow of the establishment. And how many actually believed this mayhem  was coming? I submit less than half. That may be something they should have expected, but that doesn't mean they did. It should have been OK to vote for him, if you consider a few things:
(1) politicians lie. It's part of their job. Not new. They paved the way for any particular leader of DJT's ilk, over decades.
(2) No one who wants a serious effort at control over the Southern border had any other option. There was never any real discussion about how it could be accomplished, as an alternative to what Trump does.
(3) the left has been soapboxing about the threat of racism-as-national-policy taking hold for some time, with academics leading the way.  Some of their targets have been....well, name any republican at random. All this while your typical cab driver in any American city is likely a recent emigrant from the Caribbean who, with a minimum of prompting, starts talking about how grateful he is to be able live and work here.
So why should anyone go the for negativity like what they're serving?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 07:16:53 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 06:47:26 PM

But let's not forget that while 70 million voted for Trump only a few thousand at most tried for a violent overthrow of the establishment. And how many actually believed this mayhem  was coming? I submit less than half. That may be something they should have expected, but that doesn't mean they did.

If only you cared to be so generous when other people1 are involved.



Quote
(1) politicians lie. It's part of their job. Not new. They paved the way for any particular leader of DJT's ilk, over decades.

Sure, but some lie a lot more than others, and tell much bigger whoppers. Consequently, some are much less trustworthy than others.

Quote
(2) No one who wants a serious effort at control over the Southern border had any other option. There was never any real discussion about how it could be accomplished, as an alternative to what Trump does.

Anyone who wants a serious effort at that but who thinks that's what Trump offered is not a very serious thinker.




1 i.e. skin tones.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 11, 2021, 04:58:59 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 10:13:24 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 10, 2021, 07:09:18 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 05:14:08 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2021, 07:22:36 PM


Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

Different resources for security don't necessarily affect what kind of response is prescribed. Should smashing windows and breaking down doors to enter a public building ever be, by default, something to just allow unopposed? And if there are situations where measures like tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. are appropriate, surely it shouldn't be allowed to vary by city, neighborhood, or the composition of the crowd. Those are the definition or discrimination.

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library.

From psychology, it has been firmly established that the best way to incetivize behaviour is with intermittent reinforcement. Thus, the more inconsistent the response is to rioting, the more it encourages rioters. So the fact that some riots get dealt with harshly but some get ignored for a long time means that they are going to be more frequent than if you ignored them all or dealt with them all more harshly. And given the cosrs associated with the damage done, dealing with all more harshly would be much cheaper and less disruptive to communities.

Not all riots are created equal, and should be treated appropriately for the situation.  This is like saying all crimes should be punished equally, even though there are obvious differences in their nature and severity. 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 06:14:22 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 11, 2021, 04:58:59 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 10:13:24 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 10, 2021, 07:09:18 AM

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library.

From psychology, it has been firmly established that the best way to incetivize behaviour is with intermittent reinforcement. Thus, the more inconsistent the response is to rioting, the more it encourages rioters. So the fact that some riots get dealt with harshly but some get ignored for a long time means that they are going to be more frequent than if you ignored them all or dealt with them all more harshly. And given the cosrs associated with the damage done, dealing with all more harshly would be much cheaper and less disruptive to communities.

Not all riots are created equal, and should be treated appropriately for the situation.  This is like saying all crimes should be punished equally, even though there are obvious differences in their nature and severity.

But the point remains that the rules for what defines the level of severity and what actions are appropriate based on that need to be objectively specified and consistently applied. Making actions in the moment a political decision increases polarization because it means similar situations in different jurisdictions can have widly different responses.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 11, 2021, 08:30:43 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2021, 06:14:22 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 11, 2021, 04:58:59 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2021, 10:13:24 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 10, 2021, 07:09:18 AM

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library.

From psychology, it has been firmly established that the best way to incetivize behaviour is with intermittent reinforcement. Thus, the more inconsistent the response is to rioting, the more it encourages rioters. So the fact that some riots get dealt with harshly but some get ignored for a long time means that they are going to be more frequent than if you ignored them all or dealt with them all more harshly. And given the cosrs associated with the damage done, dealing with all more harshly would be much cheaper and less disruptive to communities.

Not all riots are created equal, and should be treated appropriately for the situation.  This is like saying all crimes should be punished equally, even though there are obvious differences in their nature and severity.

But the point remains that the rules for what defines the level of severity and what actions are appropriate based on that need to be objectively specified and consistently applied. Making actions in the moment a political decision increases polarization because it means similar situations in different jurisdictions can have widly different responses.

Agreed, and a plot to storm a federal building housing the VP, VP elect, and congress, should always be stomped out regardless of location.  Just because there should be consistent rules to decide the response dosnt mean the response should be the same in all situations.  This is the problem with comparing the response here to BLM protests, where they were not storming your government.   If anything the response to BLM protests was more aggressive, when the response here should have been far more severe than any of the BLM events based on context.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 11, 2021, 09:05:16 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 07:16:53 PM

Quote
(2) No one who wants a serious effort at control over the Southern border had any other option. There was never any real discussion about how it could be accomplished, as an alternative to what Trump does.

Anyone who wants a serious effort at that but who thinks that's what Trump offered is not a very serious thinker.

1 i.e. skin tones.


Well, ditto for anyone who is incapable of a thought process about the situation independent of 'some Americans want more control of border security because they hate black and brown people.' For example we were hearing a lot of lofty pronouncements from certain politicians a few years ago, e.g. 'This is America, the melting pot with the statue of liberty welcoming foreigners. We don't build walls here to keep people out.' Well, actually we do. We had a border wall with Mexico a the time. Trump wanted sturdier one. Whatever else he does, he had a legitimate question - what do we do about this going forward? If your answer to that is 'we do nothing different for now, because the levels of illegal immigration are manageable, and anyway our hotels love the cheap undocumented labor' then OK that's one answer. But just saying 'ew don't let the racists get involved' means you're disengaged.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 10, 2021, 07:16:53 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 10, 2021, 06:47:26 PM

But let's not forget that while 70 million voted for Trump only a few thousand at most tried for a violent overthrow of the establishment. And how many actually believed this mayhem  was coming? I submit less than half. That may be something they should have expected, but that doesn't mean they did.

If only you cared to be so generous when other people1 are involved.

1 i.e. skin tones.


If you removed your asterisk from that statement you would have point. It's true I am only a little supportive to the BLM movement for somewhat different reasons. Whereas the Capitol Building insurrection this week was horrifying and illegal and must be dealt with with the strictest law enforcement available, I expect that is will be. Because we understand what it was.
OTOH, what the BLM people are doing (most of whom probably aren't even black) is decreeing, with widespread support "Professor Mahagonny and his colleagues need to be trained how to teach differently. Antiracistly, As we will define it. Because a middle aged black American career criminal in Minneapolis with advanced heart disease who was high on speedball died after a run in with a violent policeman."  They have mainstreamed their fiction that police have an epidemic of gunning down innocent people because they're racist. And then exploited that perception to have their particular interpretation of life in the USA and the aggressive agenda associated with that interpretation infiltrate education further.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: clean on January 11, 2021, 10:46:37 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-supporters-arrested-unhinged-as-placed-on-no-fly-list/ar-BB1cEUr9?li=BBnb7Kz


As the capital invaders are identified, it seems that they are being placed on the No Fly list!!

Good luck walking home!!  Im sure that there will be plenty of folks willing to pick up bearded, Q shirted, red hat wearing 'patriots' carrying zipties. 

(except that, unfortunately, there probably ARE plenty who would pick them up!)
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Descartes on January 11, 2021, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: clean on January 11, 2021, 10:46:37 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-supporters-arrested-unhinged-as-placed-on-no-fly-list/ar-BB1cEUr9?li=BBnb7Kz


As the capital invaders are identified, it seems that they are being placed on the No Fly list!!

Good luck walking home!!  Im sure that there will be plenty of folks willing to pick up bearded, Q shirted, red hat wearing 'patriots' carrying zipties. 

(except that, unfortunately, there probably ARE plenty who would pick them up!)

Funny thing: when people get convicted of other serious felonies, even violent ones, there is a hue and cry from the left that "their only punishment should be whatever the court gives them; when their sentence is done it's done!" (see "ban the box," et al)  The reasoning often given when pressed is that this is not only for their good but the good of society (i.e., is it good for society that they now can't get a job or find housing?  They'll now turn to more crime, etc.)

Yet it seems that when the crime is supporting Trump (crime meaning literally, as in the criminal actions at the capital or crime in the figurative sense, such as working for this administration) there is no limit to the severity of the life long consequences these people should face; put them on the no-fly list, make them walk home, make it so they can never hold a job again, drive them out of their neighborhoods, etc.

If only these people had walked up to someone on the street and shoved a gun to their head, stole their money, and then slammed them to the ground.  In that case, we would hear that they should be forgiven and their crime perhaps even expunged after serving a requisite sentence (probation, of course, because not everyone needs to get locked up!)

The left is hypocritical; but we knew that.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: clean on January 11, 2021, 12:04:04 PM
QuoteYet it seems that when the crime is supporting Trump (crime meaning literally, as in the criminal actions at the capital or crime in the figurative sense, such as working for this administration) there is no limit to the severity of the life long consequences these people should face; put them on the no-fly list, make them walk home, make it so they can never hold a job again, drive them out of their neighborhoods, etc.

hmmm.... As a Republican (at least before the last election when I considered myself an Independent), the bolded parts are pretty much the Republican party line! 
So WHY is it that when the 'crime' is viewed as supporting a Republican THROUGH a violent invasion of the Capitol leading to the DEATH OF A POLICEMAN that there is push back?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: ergative on January 11, 2021, 12:08:50 PM
One might also suggest that there is a distinct degree of difference in severity between a mugging and attempting a violent overthrow of a government.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Descartes on January 11, 2021, 12:17:04 PM
To respond to both of you:  Those who actively participated in the attack on the police officer that led to his death are not merely thugs;  they are savage animals and should be put down as such (unfortunately I think Biden has signaled that he will end the federal death penalty, so no luck for justice.)

I'm also not convinced that all or even most of the people - even those who breached the capital - were there to overthrow the government.  To be fair, I also don't think many of the people that took part in BLM riots had that intention either, including ones who maybe followed the crowd and walked through Target after the windows were smashed out but didn't take anything themselves, or who said "eh screw it" and picked up one item that they saw and walked out with it because everyone else was doing it too.

In the case of the BLM riots - as is the case here - I think that if you are going to address it after the fact, you need to look at who actually organized it and who actually began the violence.   Those are the people who as far as I'm concerned should be given life sentences.  I wouldn't cry if they'd have been shot, but we all know that doesn't usually happen and probably isn't even legal given current laws in most situations.

My comments in the previous post were directed towards the people proclaiming that anyone "enabling" Trump - forget about the capital breach - should never work again, and never be able to do anything in public again.  Before you say "No one is saying that," people are.  Forbes has already said that if any company ever hires anyone who worked for this administration, Forbes will consider the company illegitimate, assume they are committing fraud, and not believe anything they say. 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: spork on January 11, 2021, 12:17:38 PM
Here's a response to rioting: five police officers let rioters stroll into the Capitol while one of them tells a journalist that she's not allowed in (https://www.insider.com/trump-stupporters-capitol-mob-video-2021-1).
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 11, 2021, 01:35:35 PM
Quote from: Descartes on January 11, 2021, 12:17:04 PM
To respond to both of you:  Those who actively participated in the attack on the police officer that led to his death are not merely thugs;  they are savage animals and should be put down as such (unfortunately I think Biden has signaled that he will end the federal death penalty, so no luck for justice.)

I'm also not convinced that all or even most of the people - even those who breached the capital - were there to overthrow the government.  To be fair, I also don't think many of the people that took part in BLM riots had that intention either, including ones who maybe followed the crowd and walked through Target after the windows were smashed out but didn't take anything themselves, or who said "eh screw it" and picked up one item that they saw and walked out with it because everyone else was doing it too.

In the case of the BLM riots - as is the case here - I think that if you are going to address it after the fact, you need to look at who actually organized it and who actually began the violence.   Those are the people who as far as I'm concerned should be given life sentences.  I wouldn't cry if they'd have been shot, but we all know that doesn't usually happen and probably isn't even legal given current laws in most situations.

My comments in the previous post were directed towards the people proclaiming that anyone "enabling" Trump - forget about the capital breach - should never work again, and never be able to do anything in public again.  Before you say "No one is saying that," people are.  Forbes has already said that if any company ever hires anyone who worked for this administration, Forbes will consider the company illegitimate, assume they are committing fraud, and not believe anything they say.

Well, if you take the view that people enabling trump in recent days were actively trying to over ride a fair and free election, do you not consider that treasonous?  What is the punishment for treason?

Now, you may not agree that this was the case, but if you did believe that I assume you would demand for harsh punishment no?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: clean on January 11, 2021, 02:00:26 PM
QuoteMy comments in the previous post were directed towards the people proclaiming that anyone "enabling" Trump - forget about the capital breach - should never work again, and never be able to do anything in public again.  Before you say "No one is saying that," people are.  Forbes has already said that if any company ever hires anyone who worked for this administration, Forbes will consider the company illegitimate, assume they are committing fraud, and not believe anything they say.
Quote


From my viewing of the news on this, what Forbes has said is that IF you choose to hire these people, that Forbes will not donate money to that organization.  That is a far cry from Forbes indicates that these people should never work again. 

IF these people have a following, then there will be plenty of places that WILL hire them.  IF Sarah H. Sanders or Kelley Ann Conway  have a following and are able to raise money/attract contributions from people/places other than Forbes, then they WILL certainly find jobs.  They simply should not bother to ask Forbes for money! 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: spork on January 11, 2021, 04:42:15 PM
More response to rioting: at least ten Capitol Police officers are under investigation for their inaction during the riot and another two are already suspended for cavorting with the mob while on duty. At least two Seattle police officers who were in DC during the riot are now on administrative leave and under investigation. A Philadelphia police detective is being investigated. I could go on, but won't.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 11, 2021, 04:53:51 PM
We're at an interesting place when conservatives have decided that Forbes is the left
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 12, 2021, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: Descartes on January 11, 2021, 11:29:00 AM

The left is hypocritical; but we knew that.

As I'm watching television I have the choice between Trump making another of his many in-your-face-lies that 'everyone looked over my speech and agreed I am blameless,' and then a show called 'The Real' where they are ranting about how no one let anyone from BLM have their chance to assemble and protest. I guess they've only got a few days left to rant about that before inauguration day and a fortress of law enforcement (as everyone knows we will have). Where's the voice from the middle? Does the lady whose home was invaded by Floyd get a turn at demonstrating?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: apl68 on January 12, 2021, 03:05:02 PM
Richard Barnett, the man who posted selfies of himself in the Speaker's office, was arrested on Friday:


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-arrested-illegally-entering-office-speaker-house


According to state news reports, the Arkansas Patriots organization says that he is not a member of theirs--he attended a rally with them once, but was told to leave when he insulted a BLM counter protestor.  And the latest news from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is that he could be facing up to 10 years on Federal charges.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2021, 05:24:08 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 12, 2021, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: Descartes on January 11, 2021, 11:29:00 AM

The left is hypocritical; but we knew that.

As I'm watching television I have the choice between Trump making another of his many in-your-face-lies that 'everyone looked over my speech and agreed I am blameless,' and then a show called 'The Real' where they are ranting about how no one let anyone from BLM have their chance to assemble and protest. I guess they've only got a few days left to rant about that before inauguration day and a fortress of law enforcement (as everyone knows we will have). Where's the voice from the middle? Does the lady whose home was invaded by Floyd get a turn at demonstrating?

Joe Biden, the Democratic President-Elect.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 13, 2021, 04:14:09 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2021, 05:24:08 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 12, 2021, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: Descartes on January 11, 2021, 11:29:00 AM

The left is hypocritical; but we knew that.

As I'm watching television I have the choice between Trump making another of his many in-your-face-lies that 'everyone looked over my speech and agreed I am blameless,' and then a show called 'The Real' where they are ranting about how no one let anyone from BLM have their chance to assemble and protest. I guess they've only got a few days left to rant about that before inauguration day and a fortress of law enforcement (as everyone knows we will have). Where's the voice from the middle? Does the lady whose home was invaded by Floyd get a turn at demonstrating?

Joe Biden, the Democratic President-Elect.

Did Biden ever publicly denounce rioters this summer, and indicate that they should be arrested and charged? If not, then he's not the voice from the "middle".
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: waterboy on January 13, 2021, 04:15:48 AM
I believe he did exactly that.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: ergative on January 13, 2021, 04:46:24 AM
Quote from: waterboy on January 13, 2021, 04:15:48 AM
I believe he did exactly that.

From Biden's campaign website, his statement on BLM violence begins (https://joebiden.com/2020/08/30/statement-by-vice-president-joe-biden-on-the-deadly-violence-in-portland/): "The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by any one, whether on the left or the right."

Here's the USA Today factcheck on this issue, with more links. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/17/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violence-protests-all-summer/5706355002/ (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/17/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violence-protests-all-summer/5706355002/).

NB: this was not hard to find.  Search term on Google: Biden criticism of BLM. Set the dates to between 1 June and 30 September, and the USA today fact check was the second hit.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 13, 2021, 05:43:03 AM
Quote from: ergative on January 13, 2021, 04:46:24 AM
Quote from: waterboy on January 13, 2021, 04:15:48 AM
I believe he did exactly that.

From Biden's campaign website, his statement on BLM violence begins (https://joebiden.com/2020/08/30/statement-by-vice-president-joe-biden-on-the-deadly-violence-in-portland/): "The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by any one, whether on the left or the right."

Here's the USA Today factcheck on this issue, with more links. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/17/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violence-protests-all-summer/5706355002/ (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/17/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violence-protests-all-summer/5706355002/).

NB: this was not hard to find.  Search term on Google: Biden criticism of BLM. Set the dates to between 1 June and 30 September, and the USA today fact check was the second hit.

From the article linked, the first time he mentioned prosecution seems to be July 28.

Quote
"I've said from the outset of the recent protests that there is no place for violence or the destruction of property," Biden said July 28, according to the Post. "Peaceful protesters should be protected — but arsonists and anarchists should be prosecuted — and local law enforcement can do that.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 13, 2021, 07:01:19 AM
I hope Biden turns out to be a voice from the middle, and I hope he stays healthy for the next four years, now that he doesn't have to beat the bushes for votes. He is not that vulnerable to pressure from the right, but the pressure from the far left is going to be substantial. If he listens to the kind of people who want a government department of anti-racism and a tax on being white I fear for our safety in the future. I mean all of us. The thing he needs to remember is he campaigned saying 'this should be a time for coming together and healing.'
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mamselle on January 13, 2021, 07:22:41 AM
The local clergy association is discussing the possibility of going to stand around the State House next week.

M.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: spork on January 13, 2021, 12:20:22 PM
More response to rioting: it's starting to look like at least some of what happened at the Capitol was an inside job. Three Capitol Police officers suspended with another seventeen under investigation so far, and reportedly some Republican members of Congress gave pre-riot tours of the Capitol Building to groups engaged in "reconnaissance." 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: lightning on January 13, 2021, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: mamselle on January 13, 2021, 07:22:41 AM
The local clergy association is discussing the possibility of going to stand around the State House next week.

M.

Noble. I hope they don't get arrested, like the approximately 70 Catholic clergy and supporters, who were arrested in 2019 at the Capitol, for protesting Trump's immigration policies--the Capitol Police were sure efficient about arresting them back then.

Actually, maybe it would be good for them to get arrested for their own safety, because MAGA would probably tear gas them or beat them to death.

Hey, all you whataboutism-ers, it's your turn, now.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 14, 2021, 06:15:55 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 13, 2021, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: mamselle on January 13, 2021, 07:22:41 AM
The local clergy association is discussing the possibility of going to stand around the State House next week.

M.

Noble. I hope they don't get arrested, like the approximately 70 Catholic clergy and supporters, who were arrested in 2019 at the Capitol, for protesting Trump's immigration policies--the Capitol Police were sure efficient about arresting them back then.

Actually, maybe it would be good for them to get arrested for their own safety, because MAGA would probably tear gas them or beat them to death.

Hey, all you whataboutism-ers, it's your turn, now.

Here's what I can find (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2019/07/19/70-catholics-arrested-in-dc-protest-over-migrant-treatment.html):
Quote
WASHINGTON - Hundreds of Catholics gathered in the nation's capital to protest the federal government's treatment of migrants, and about 70 sisters, clergy and parishioners were arrested.

The Washington Post reports protesters armed with photos of migrant children who died in federal custody recited The Lord's Prayer as they demonstrated in the Russell Senate Office Building on Thursday. The children's names rang out as some protesters laid on the floor in the shape of a cross.

This is the second time this week people of faith protested in the District and called for the dissolution of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and an end to crowded detainment centres at the U.S.-Mexico border. Dozens of protesters blocked access to the ICE headquarters Tuesday and 10 were arrested on charges of unlawful entry.


In the first case, I'm guessing they were arrested for trespassing. Is that correct? If so, what's the legal definition? In the second case, if they were blocking the doors to a building, then that probably is illegal. The "unlawful entry" charges must relate to how they entered the building or where they went inside.

If the charges are within the definitons of the law, and people did not resist arrest, then as long as law enforcement people didn't engage in any violence, then there's no problem.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: apl68 on January 14, 2021, 07:41:47 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2021, 06:15:55 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 13, 2021, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: mamselle on January 13, 2021, 07:22:41 AM
The local clergy association is discussing the possibility of going to stand around the State House next week.

M.

Noble. I hope they don't get arrested, like the approximately 70 Catholic clergy and supporters, who were arrested in 2019 at the Capitol, for protesting Trump's immigration policies--the Capitol Police were sure efficient about arresting them back then.

Actually, maybe it would be good for them to get arrested for their own safety, because MAGA would probably tear gas them or beat them to death.

Hey, all you whataboutism-ers, it's your turn, now.

Here's what I can find (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2019/07/19/70-catholics-arrested-in-dc-protest-over-migrant-treatment.html):
Quote
WASHINGTON - Hundreds of Catholics gathered in the nation's capital to protest the federal government's treatment of migrants, and about 70 sisters, clergy and parishioners were arrested.

The Washington Post reports protesters armed with photos of migrant children who died in federal custody recited The Lord's Prayer as they demonstrated in the Russell Senate Office Building on Thursday. The children's names rang out as some protesters laid on the floor in the shape of a cross.

This is the second time this week people of faith protested in the District and called for the dissolution of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and an end to crowded detainment centres at the U.S.-Mexico border. Dozens of protesters blocked access to the ICE headquarters Tuesday and 10 were arrested on charges of unlawful entry.


In the first case, I'm guessing they were arrested for trespassing. Is that correct? If so, what's the legal definition? In the second case, if they were blocking the doors to a building, then that probably is illegal. The "unlawful entry" charges must relate to how they entered the building or where they went inside.

If the charges are within the definitons of the law, and people did not resist arrest, then as long as law enforcement people didn't engage in any violence, then there's no problem.


  • If none of their actions fit the legal definitons of trespass, (or whatever), then their arrests are a problem.
  • If they resisted arrest, and force was employed, then it may or may not have been justified to make the arrests.
  • If they didn't resist, but excessive force was used, such as the protesters gassed for Trump's photo-op, then that's a problem.

That's true.  Peaceful protestors often get legally and peacefully arrested for trespassing.  They sometimes get themselves arrested deliberately to draw attention to their causes.  Law enforcement's reaction in such situations is not a cause for scandal, unless there was excessive force involved.

Again, most BLM protestors are peaceful, most MAGA protestors are peaceful, and most law officers covering protests don't engage in excessive force.  When discussing these things we've got to bear that in mind, and stop tarring everybody with the same brush.  Again and again and again on this thread I've seen this attitude of "our side has more right to be outraged because their side acts more outrageous!  Our side at most has a tiny handful of bad apples that of course we don't approve of, but their side is guilty of cheering on the mobs even if they don't participate!" 

I just don't see that.  It seems to me that the great majority of Americans still want peace.  If they didn't, the violence would have become far worse already.  Let's stop assuming that millions of people on "the other side" want to see violence.  It usually takes two to have violence.  It always takes two to make peace.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 14, 2021, 07:57:21 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 14, 2021, 07:41:47 AM
It seems to me that the great majority of Americans still want peace.  If they didn't, the violence would have become far worse already.  Let's stop assuming that millions of people on "the other side" want to see violence.  It usually takes two to have violence.  It always takes two to make peace.

I agree. I imagine the vast majority of people are appalled by rioting and other unlawful behaviour, whichever side it comes from, but that doesn't get talked about since it takes wind out of the "outrage sails" of everyone promoting a cause, and every news organization which can get an audience by dwelling on it.

Imagine the headline:
"On the news this evening; civial and productive discussions continue regarding <whatever issue>!"

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: spork on January 14, 2021, 10:18:23 AM
Two Virginia police officers arrested, presumably by the FBI.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 14, 2021, 10:30:34 AM
An interesting video, including reference to the American revolution, and the question of when anti-government action may be justified.

The Capitol Insurrection and BLM riots comparison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyIQ4jbEf0)
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 12:15:54 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2021, 10:30:34 AM
An interesting video, including reference to the American revolution, and the question of when anti-government action may be justified.

The Capitol Insurrection and BLM riots comparison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyIQ4jbEf0)

Both sides, the militant right insurrectionists and the anti-racist crowd want to claim the other is 'un-American.' If you can make that charge stick, apparently, you've got it made. Whereas, the far left may have a logical failure. If as they claim white against black racism is an essential American trait, then anti-racism can be said to be an insurrection, an anti-America uprising. Which would make last week's attack on the government function a prevention of an insurrection.
Both sides need to tone it down some.
There's a guest speaker coming to our campus next week, an anti-racism movement mover and shaker, and i'm pretty sure he's going to declare the USA morally illegitimate.
Don't ask me!
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: dismalist on January 14, 2021, 12:33:23 PM
This person, who was present claims that agents provocateurs were responsible:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/14/i-saw-provocateurs-at-the-capitol-riot-on-jan-6/ (https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/14/i-saw-provocateurs-at-the-capitol-riot-on-jan-6/)
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2021, 12:45:43 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 14, 2021, 12:33:23 PM
This person, who was present claims that agents provocateurs were responsible:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/14/i-saw-provocateurs-at-the-capitol-riot-on-jan-6/ (https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/14/i-saw-provocateurs-at-the-capitol-riot-on-jan-6/)

This is a joke, right? He presumes anyone in a MAGA cap on backwards is actually Antifa.

Jesus H Christ.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2021, 01:56:49 PM
White supremacists were in abundance at the Capitol:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/terror-watchlist-capitol-riot-fbi/2021/01/14/07412814-55f7-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 03:19:42 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2021, 01:56:49 PM
White supremacists were in abundance at the Capitol:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/terror-watchlist-capitol-riot-fbi/2021/01/14/07412814-55f7-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html

Can't read the link, I'm not enrolled. Is a white supremacist now anyone who isn't an anti-racism campaigner?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2021, 03:41:18 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 03:19:42 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2021, 01:56:49 PM
White supremacists were in abundance at the Capitol:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/terror-watchlist-capitol-riot-fbi/2021/01/14/07412814-55f7-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html

Can't read the link, I'm not enrolled. Is a white supremacist now anyone who isn't an anti-racism campaigner?

Sorry you can't read it. These are people on a national terrorism watch list, mostly white supremacist. Yes, they exist. Just Google Neo-Nazi and you'll Find a pretty comprehensive list of groups in at least all the 48 contiguous states.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 03:54:47 PM
I am aware these right wing groups with what we call extreme agenda are around. I am looking forward to hopefully a day soon when Trump's incendiary side is gone.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 14, 2021, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 12:15:54 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2021, 10:30:34 AM
An interesting video, including reference to the American revolution, and the question of when anti-government action may be justified.

The Capitol Insurrection and BLM riots comparison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyIQ4jbEf0)

Both sides, the militant right insurrectionists and the anti-racist crowd want to claim the other is 'un-American.' If you can make that charge stick, apparently, you've got it made. Whereas, the far left may have a logical failure. If as they claim white against black racism is an essential American trait, then anti-racism can be said to be an insurrection, an anti-America uprising. Which would make last week's attack on the government function a prevention of an insurrection.
Both sides need to tone it down some.
There's a guest speaker coming to our campus next week, an anti-racism movement mover and shaker, and i'm pretty sure he's going to declare the USA morally illegitimate.
Don't ask me!

That's some pretty wild mental gymnastics.

And the USA is morally illegitimate in many ways.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 04:17:21 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 14, 2021, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 12:15:54 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2021, 10:30:34 AM
An interesting video, including reference to the American revolution, and the question of when anti-government action may be justified.

The Capitol Insurrection and BLM riots comparison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyIQ4jbEf0)

Both sides, the militant right insurrectionists and the anti-racist crowd want to claim the other is 'un-American.' If you can make that charge stick, apparently, you've got it made. Whereas, the far left may have a logical failure. If as they claim white against black racism is an essential American trait, then anti-racism can be said to be an insurrection, an anti-America uprising. Which would make last week's attack on the government function a prevention of an insurrection.
Both sides need to tone it down some.
There's a guest speaker coming to our campus next week, an anti-racism movement mover and shaker, and i'm pretty sure he's going to declare the USA morally illegitimate.
Don't ask me!

That's some pretty wild mental gymnastics.

And the USA is morally illegitimate in many ways.

1. Compared to what?
2. Who really cares the most? Academics? Please.

Nevertheless, I would estimate that the number of Americans who watch what we would call right wing media (Hannity, et al) and are told that liberals hate America, and believe it, is in the tens of millions. And you know things like the 1619 project of the NYT, and 'how do you do. My name is ________ and my preferred pronouns are_____________' are putting gasoline on that fire.
At some point when you've said systemic racism can be fought and conquered you've got to come up with a timeline, e.g. 'we will be at this point with income and asset equity by this date...'  Because when you talk to black Americans who are prosperous and feel they have some choice about what town they can live in (I am speaking of non-academics) they generally couldn't give a rat's ass if someone mistook them for a parking valet. It's about money. Not government giveaways, but having a good enough job and future.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
Do you really believe that there is no difference between

multiple local/regional protests against systematic murder of African-Americans by the police, which turned into riots in some instances of random escalation

and

one, coordinated riot-invasion terrorist action intended to escalate and overturn a just and fair election, incited by Trump, under cover of protest, Republican enablers, and sympathetic and intentionally incompetent DC/Capitol law enforcement?

I can't imagine that you do. There is a vast difference between the two, but I'm not here to argue that, because you and a few others NEED to believe that they are equivalent. So, I'll let you. It's obviously important to you.

I'm objecting to trying to change the conversation about the Capitol insurrection to riots in general. It's a typical right-wing apologist distraction tactic. Get people talking about riots and arguing about #BLM, instead of focusing on the heinous attempt to overturn the US government and the culpability of those that were aligned with it, in thought, word, and/or deed, and discussing the path forward for justice and ultimately unity.

I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 05:26:04 PM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
Do you really believe that there is no difference between

multiple local/regional protests against systematic murder of African-Americans by the police, which turned into riots in some instances of random escalation

and

one, coordinated riot-invasion terrorist action intended to escalate and overturn a just and fair election, incited by Trump, under cover of protest, Republican enablers, and sympathetic and intentionally incompetent DC/Capitol law enforcement?

I can't imagine that you do. There is a vast difference between the two, but I'm not here to argue that, because you and a few others NEED to believe that they are equivalent. So, I'll let you. It's obviously important to you.

I'm objecting to trying to change the conversation about the Capitol insurrection to riots in general. It's a typical right-wing apologist distraction tactic. Get people talking about riots and arguing about #BLM, instead of focusing on the heinous attempt to overturn the US government and the culpability of those that were aligned with it, in thought, word, and/or deed, and discussing the path forward for justice and ultimately unity.

I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

No quarrel with any of that.* I only post what I did because the surprise on the part of the academic community in response to last week's ugly, lawless incident reminds me of the shock four years ago when DJT won the election. it seems to me that too often, in spite of superior education, academics look at politics and society in the USA with the view that things that seem plainly evident to them will or should become evident to society at large. Or maybe I am finally older than many readers here so I have lost my youthful idealism...(?)

*except I'm still not sure what systemic murder is or, more specifically, how it seem so easy for some to conclude that we are experiencing it. The stories of death at the hands of police are actually quite different from each other among members of any particular racial group. Also, a significant number of public en masse reactions to police killings have involved incomplete or false information about what actually happened. And without taking into account the amounts and types of crime present in a particular community that requires police to maintain order, one is prone to single issue analyses.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: dismalist on January 14, 2021, 05:31:15 PM
Dear All,

I think one is forgetting the gross incompetence involved in all these situations.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 05:38:16 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 14, 2021, 05:31:15 PM
Dear All,

I think one is forgetting the gross incompetence involved in all these situations.

If the workforce is anything like some of the academic departments or other workplaces I've frequented...
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 06:50:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

But you do care about equivalence because you are saying that the response to the attempted insurrection should be equivalent to the BLM protests.  They are very different things.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: writingprof on January 15, 2021, 06:56:19 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

Firing upon rioters the minute someone so much as steals a piece of gum. Or is that too tough?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 07:48:17 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 06:50:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

But you do care about equivalence because you are saying that the response to the attempted insurrection should be equivalent to the BLM protests.  They are very different things.

I am saying there should be a set of rules that cover both things, which will probably include when to escalate responses. Many people have claimed that the response to white protesters is different than the response to black protesters. If that is a problem then there needs to be a consistent set of rules to be applied to all protesters.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 08:21:33 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 14, 2021, 03:19:42 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2021, 01:56:49 PM
White supremacists were in abundance at the Capitol:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/terror-watchlist-capitol-riot-fbi/2021/01/14/07412814-55f7-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html

Can't read the link, I'm not enrolled. Is a white supremacist now anyone who isn't an anti-racism campaigner?

Mahagonny, people are not going to be inclined to take you seriously if you keep engaging in this sort of hyperbole.  As jimbogumbo notes, there were quite a few unquestioned, out and open white supremacists at the Capitol (I might note that at least one of them was arrested in D.C. before the rioting started, which somewhat contradicts assertions that the D.C. authorities were totally ignoring the threat).  Every mention of or attack on white supremacists is not meant to be an attack on insufficiently woke white people in general, or an insult to you personally.

There ARE people who talk that way.  I see it all the time.  The NY Times, to name only one mainstream source, contains an awful lot of it.  I get it.  It's annoying.  I'm annoyed by such foolishness too.  But that doesn't mean that everybody who mentions "white supremacists" or "racial injustice" is guilty of taking such extreme views.  Don't let yourself be triggered into seeing attacks and insults where they aren't intended.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 08:22:35 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 07:48:17 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 06:50:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

But you do care about equivalence because you are saying that the response to the attempted insurrection should be equivalent to the BLM protests.  They are very different things.

I am saying there should be a set of rules that cover both things, which will probably include when to escalate responses. Many people have claimed that the response to white protesters is different than the response to black protesters. If that is a problem then there needs to be a consistent set of rules to be applied to all protesters.

The 'response' happens before the event and during it, since the amount of police presences is a result of someone's estimate (prediction) of the need. The estimates are sometimes way off. Thus while the rules can be, one expects, the same regardless of the people who are protesting and their reasons for holding a protest, there will still be those who are complaining 'we had more police present for the George Floyd protest than we did when people broke into the Capitol Building.' Whereas after next week the dialogue could change yet again if the inauguration will have a force that looks more like D-Day. Some people just want to argue.
True we have learned that some police were complicit in the attack on the Capitol, but the rules for punishing them would already be in place.

Apl: OK, thank you.
All: I move that in the shared interest of de escalation of rhetoric, we agree that anyone on either the left or the right who wants an end to vandalism, rioting, assault come out in favor of 'law and order.' There's no reason that mantra should be the exclusive property of the Right. If you're for law and order, stand up and be counted. It's not a dirty word when everyone uses it. As that old Canned Heat blues song goes 'let's work together.'
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 09:23:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 07:48:17 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 06:50:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

But you do care about equivalence because you are saying that the response to the attempted insurrection should be equivalent to the BLM protests.  They are very different things.

I am saying there should be a set of rules that cover both things, which will probably include when to escalate responses. Many people have claimed that the response to white protesters is different than the response to black protesters. If that is a problem then there needs to be a consistent set of rules to be applied to all protesters.

There should, but policing is not run federally so I don't see how that could happen. 

The point that police are more violent toward left leaning protests seems pretty well documented.  This is not an isolated incident and the point here is that the insurrection is an extreme event that warranted a stronger response than we saw.  This is especially true if we were following some sort of guideline as you suggest.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-use-of-force-protests-black-lives-matter-far-right
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: jimbogumbo on January 15, 2021, 09:40:22 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 14, 2021, 12:45:43 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 14, 2021, 12:33:23 PM
This person, who was present claims that agents provocateurs were responsible:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/14/i-saw-provocateurs-at-the-capitol-riot-on-jan-6/ (https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/14/i-saw-provocateurs-at-the-capitol-riot-on-jan-6/)

This is a joke, right? He presumes anyone in a MAGA cap on backwards is actually Antifa.

Jesus H Christ.

dismalist: don't know if he had a backwards MAGA hat, but this guy seems to be an actual provocateur:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/14/liberal-activist-charged-capitol-riot-459553
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 09:49:57 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 09:23:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 07:48:17 AM

I am saying there should be a set of rules that cover both things, which will probably include when to escalate responses. Many people have claimed that the response to white protesters is different than the response to black protesters. If that is a problem then there needs to be a consistent set of rules to be applied to all protesters.

There should, but policing is not run federally so I don't see how that could happen. 

The point that police are more violent toward left leaning protests seems pretty well documented.  This is not an isolated incident and the point here is that the insurrection is an extreme event that warranted a stronger response than we saw.  This is especially true if we were following some sort of guideline as you suggest.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-use-of-force-protests-black-lives-matter-far-right

I'm perfectly happy to say that there should be stronger responses to any sort of violence from either side. During the riots in the summer, I believe there were places like Portland where politicians actually told police not to intervene. (And in the case of the CHOP/CHAZ, allowed armed thugs to take over part of the city for weeks.)

It was funny to see stories of journalists or bloggers shouting "DEFUND THE POLICE" until the violence reached their own neighborhoods at which point they wanted to call the police.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 10:13:12 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 09:49:57 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 09:23:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 07:48:17 AM

I am saying there should be a set of rules that cover both things, which will probably include when to escalate responses. Many people have claimed that the response to white protesters is different than the response to black protesters. If that is a problem then there needs to be a consistent set of rules to be applied to all protesters.

There should, but policing is not run federally so I don't see how that could happen. 

The point that police are more violent toward left leaning protests seems pretty well documented.  This is not an isolated incident and the point here is that the insurrection is an extreme event that warranted a stronger response than we saw.  This is especially true if we were following some sort of guideline as you suggest.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-use-of-force-protests-black-lives-matter-far-right

I'm perfectly happy to say that there should be stronger responses to any sort of violence from either side. During the riots in the summer, I believe there were places like Portland where politicians actually told police not to intervene. (And in the case of the CHOP/CHAZ, allowed armed thugs to take over part of the city for weeks.)

It was funny to see stories of journalists or bloggers shouting "DEFUND THE POLICE" until the violence reached their own neighborhoods at which point they wanted to call the police.

As I've already posted somewhere on the fora (I'm probably on some people's 'ignore user' list) in one major city rioters set fire to a police cruiser and the whole thing was televised. The two voiceovers watching the whole thing were the staff anchorman and a retired or current police chief. Both were calmly watching and predicted the cruiser would be set on fire a good twenty minutes ahead of the incident, also predicting, correctly, that the police had most likely already decided to let it happen. This year we got a new phrase in the currency of mainstream broadcasting - 'mostly peaceful protest.' I guess if five thousand people are present and only six of them start a fire with a price tag of $100,000 and maybe only another 200 or so are looting it's a mostly peaceful protest, right? So if you are thinking of looting, vandalizing, etc, and you decide against it, it was more likely your conscience than fear of consequences. The police are under constant pressure to show they have not overreacted.
It's interesting how these things get covered by CNN, too. While all of this is going on they'll be showing pictures of George Floyd and talking about 'how upset people are.' They don't mention much about how upset people might be that their city is under siege.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Descartes on January 15, 2021, 10:26:04 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 09:23:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 07:48:17 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 06:50:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

But you do care about equivalence because you are saying that the response to the attempted insurrection should be equivalent to the BLM protests.  They are very different things.

I am saying there should be a set of rules that cover both things, which will probably include when to escalate responses. Many people have claimed that the response to white protesters is different than the response to black protesters. If that is a problem then there needs to be a consistent set of rules to be applied to all protesters.

There should, but policing is not run federally so I don't see how that could happen. 

The point that police are more violent toward left leaning protests seems pretty well documented.  This is not an isolated incident and the point here is that the insurrection is an extreme event that warranted a stronger response than we saw.  This is especially true if we were following some sort of guideline as you suggest.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-use-of-force-protests-black-lives-matter-far-right

It appears, if everything that has been reported on is correct, that this was simply a massive intelligence failure more than a case of going easier on white or right wing protesters. 

I think they "let" them do this in the same way that the government "let" a bunch of Saudi's fly planes into the World Trade Center in 2001.  There was a breakdown in intelligence and competence. 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 10:44:10 AM
Time will tell if it was simply incompetence, or more intentional.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Descartes on January 15, 2021, 10:26:04 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 09:23:39 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 07:48:17 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 06:50:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

But you do care about equivalence because you are saying that the response to the attempted insurrection should be equivalent to the BLM protests.  They are very different things.

I am saying there should be a set of rules that cover both things, which will probably include when to escalate responses. Many people have claimed that the response to white protesters is different than the response to black protesters. If that is a problem then there needs to be a consistent set of rules to be applied to all protesters.

There should, but policing is not run federally so I don't see how that could happen. 

The point that police are more violent toward left leaning protests seems pretty well documented.  This is not an isolated incident and the point here is that the insurrection is an extreme event that warranted a stronger response than we saw.  This is especially true if we were following some sort of guideline as you suggest.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-use-of-force-protests-black-lives-matter-far-right

It appears, if everything that has been reported on is correct, that this was simply a massive intelligence failure more than a case of going easier on white or right wing protesters. 

I think they "let" them do this in the same way that the government "let" a bunch of Saudi's fly planes into the World Trade Center in 2001.  There was a breakdown in intelligence and competence.

That's what I'm inclined to suspect. 
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 11:08:09 AM
"Police used teargas, rubber bullets, beatings with batons and other force against demonstrators at 511 leftwing protests and 33 rightwing protests since April, according to updated data made public this week.

The Guardian compared the percentage of all demonstrations organized by leftwing and rightwing groups that resulted in the use of force by law enforcement. For leftwing demonstrations, that was about 4.7% of protests, while for rightwing demonstrations, it was about 1.4%, meaning law enforcement was about three times more likely to use force against leftwing versus rightwing protests."

Isn't that only somewhat less than 1/5 as many right wing demonstrations studied as the number of left wing demonstrations studied? Questions:

1. If police are more annoyed internally with left wing protests than with right wing ones, why do we think that is? I have a theory...there are more of them, and the job of watching them is a pain in the ass.
2. Which category of protesting gets more encouragement from the media?
3. What is the conclusion/interpretation about those incidents involving a protest and also a counter protest?
4. How many deserved teargas and rubber bullets and never got any, and which side were they on?
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 11:17:55 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Descartes on January 15, 2021, 10:26:04 AM
It appears, if everything that has been reported on is correct, that this was simply a massive intelligence failure more than a case of going easier on white or right wing protesters. 

I think they "let" them do this in the same way that the government "let" a bunch of Saudi's fly planes into the World Trade Center in 2001.  There was a breakdown in intelligence and competence.

That's what I'm inclined to suspect.

The same logic could be applied to the summer riots. Was it the intent of governments in various cities and states to "let" businesses be torched, looted, etc? It's much more reasonable to assume they didn't really anticipate what was about to happen.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 11:29:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 11:17:55 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Descartes on January 15, 2021, 10:26:04 AM
It appears, if everything that has been reported on is correct, that this was simply a massive intelligence failure more than a case of going easier on white or right wing protesters. 

I think they "let" them do this in the same way that the government "let" a bunch of Saudi's fly planes into the World Trade Center in 2001.  There was a breakdown in intelligence and competence.

That's what I'm inclined to suspect.

The same logic could be applied to the summer riots. Was it the intent of governments in various cities and states to "let" businesses be torched, looted, etc? It's much more reasonable to assume they didn't really anticipate what was about to happen.

Yes, I'm sure many decided to let them proceed, but again you fail to see a difference between storming your government and protesting or rioting in the streets.  Deciding to allow people into your capital building to potentially kidnap (or worse) your sitting government is not at all the same as allowing rioters to burn a police car.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 11:33:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 11:08:09 AM
"Police used teargas, rubber bullets, beatings with batons and other force against demonstrators at 511 leftwing protests and 33 rightwing protests since April, according to updated data made public this week.

The Guardian compared the percentage of all demonstrations organized by leftwing and rightwing groups that resulted in the use of force by law enforcement. For leftwing demonstrations, that was about 4.7% of protests, while for rightwing demonstrations, it was about 1.4%, meaning law enforcement was about three times more likely to use force against leftwing versus rightwing protests."

Isn't that only somewhat less than 1/5 as many right wing demonstrations studied as the number of left wing demonstrations studied? Questions:

1. If police are more annoyed internally with left wing protests than with right wing ones, why do we think that is? I have a theory...there are more of them, and the job of watching them is a pain in the ass.
2. Which category of protesting gets more encouragement from the media?
3. What is the conclusion/interpretation about those incidents involving a protest and also a counter protest?
4. How many deserved teargas and rubber bullets and never got any, and which side were they on?


I assume police are overwhelmingly conservative and this likely influences these decisions.  Also, on one hand you have a group of people who are protesting policy violence and racism.  I could definitely see this influencing how they want to respond.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 11:29:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 11:17:55 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 15, 2021, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Descartes on January 15, 2021, 10:26:04 AM
It appears, if everything that has been reported on is correct, that this was simply a massive intelligence failure more than a case of going easier on white or right wing protesters. 

I think they "let" them do this in the same way that the government "let" a bunch of Saudi's fly planes into the World Trade Center in 2001.  There was a breakdown in intelligence and competence.

That's what I'm inclined to suspect.

The same logic could be applied to the summer riots. Was it the intent of governments in various cities and states to "let" businesses be torched, looted, etc? It's much more reasonable to assume they didn't really anticipate what was about to happen.

Yes, I'm sure many decided to let them proceed, but again you fail to see a difference between storming your government and protesting or rioting in the streets.  Deciding to allow people into your capital building to potentially kidnap (or worse) your sitting government is not at all the same as allowing rioters to burn a police car.

Descartes' point was that it's more likely that the response was inadequate because of a failure to anticipate the size of the threat, rather than a desire to condone the action. I'm suggesting the same would apply to the summer riots; I doubt any city "wanted" to get rid of surplus police cars, but were unprepared for the degree of violence that led to the cars being burned.

Many of the people now complaining that the DC police did not act as quickly or decisively as they should have would probably have complained in the summer if cities had had huge, visible police presences at protests in case of violence. But the only way to prevent things getting out of hand is to have a massive, visible presence of police in advance. With the summer riots having themes like "defund the police", such a  presence would be seen as direct provocation.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 12:00:32 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 11:33:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 11:08:09 AM
"Police used teargas, rubber bullets, beatings with batons and other force against demonstrators at 511 leftwing protests and 33 rightwing protests since April, according to updated data made public this week.

The Guardian compared the percentage of all demonstrations organized by leftwing and rightwing groups that resulted in the use of force by law enforcement. For leftwing demonstrations, that was about 4.7% of protests, while for rightwing demonstrations, it was about 1.4%, meaning law enforcement was about three times more likely to use force against leftwing versus rightwing protests."

Isn't that only somewhat less than 1/5 as many right wing demonstrations studied as the number of left wing demonstrations studied? Questions:

1. If police are more annoyed internally with left wing protests than with right wing ones, why do we think that is? I have a theory...there are more of them, and the job of watching them is a pain in the ass.
2. Which category of protesting gets more encouragement from the media?
3. What is the conclusion/interpretation about those incidents involving a protest and also a counter protest?
4. How many deserved teargas and rubber bullets and never got any, and which side were they on?


I assume police are overwhelmingly conservative and this likely influences these decisions.  Also, on one hand you have a group of people who are protesting policy violence and racism.  I could definitely see this influencing how they want to respond.

Not to mention they know that fighting black on black crime might be a pretty serious exhausting and costly undertaking to do and never be thanked for.

Anyway, these numbers don't tell a story of rampant police violence. They just don't. The story is no matter who you are they are mostly pretty disciplined. Should we riot whenever any well paid group is not doing their job perfectly? When will we get around to college professors.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 01:06:03 PM
QuoteShould we riot protest whenever any well paid group is not doing their job perfectly? When will we get around to college professors.

Fixed it.

I can think of one possible response to rioting and protesting that hasn't been mentioned yet. Hold the media accountable for what they should be accountable for.

Many if not almost all of the George Floyd incident protesters were motivated by the belief that the timeline of events involved George Floyd being pushed to the ground, restrained and then Derek Chauvin leaning on his neck with Chauvin's knee, and following that Floyd saying 'I can't breathe.' then dying within minutes. All of that did happen, but what came out several months later was that Floyd began saying he couldn't breathe before Chauvin even arrived, when he was in the squad car, and subsequently asked to be allowed to lie on the ground. While none of this makes Chauvin look like he did the proper thing, it's a significantly different story. Floyd also complained of claustrophobia even though when they first apprehended him he was sitting in the front seat of his car, considerably less roomy than the squad car. The bizarre behavior was eventually understood to be intoxication with amphetamine and fentanyl, which is used for anesthesia.
When the media has a story about a police killing it's a boon to their sales. When they have a story about a racist killing, it's a gold mine. When they have a complex story, they lose some of their power to get people excited.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 01:26:26 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 12:00:32 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 11:33:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 11:08:09 AM
"Police used teargas, rubber bullets, beatings with batons and other force against demonstrators at 511 leftwing protests and 33 rightwing protests since April, according to updated data made public this week.

The Guardian compared the percentage of all demonstrations organized by leftwing and rightwing groups that resulted in the use of force by law enforcement. For leftwing demonstrations, that was about 4.7% of protests, while for rightwing demonstrations, it was about 1.4%, meaning law enforcement was about three times more likely to use force against leftwing versus rightwing protests."

Isn't that only somewhat less than 1/5 as many right wing demonstrations studied as the number of left wing demonstrations studied? Questions:

1. If police are more annoyed internally with left wing protests than with right wing ones, why do we think that is? I have a theory...there are more of them, and the job of watching them is a pain in the ass.
2. Which category of protesting gets more encouragement from the media?
3. What is the conclusion/interpretation about those incidents involving a protest and also a counter protest?
4. How many deserved teargas and rubber bullets and never got any, and which side were they on?


I assume police are overwhelmingly conservative and this likely influences these decisions.  Also, on one hand you have a group of people who are protesting policy violence and racism.  I could definitely see this influencing how they want to respond.

Not to mention they know that fighting black on black crime might be a pretty serious exhausting and costly undertaking to do and never be thanked for.

Anyway, these numbers don't tell a story of rampant police violence. They just don't. The story is no matter who you are they are mostly pretty disciplined. Should we riot whenever any well paid group is not doing their job perfectly? When will we get around to college professors.

Man, you really like to conflate issues.  The BLM were not based on how police handle protests or riots, as you know.

They are also not just about George Floyd, as you know.

You can attack his character all you want, but there are many more examples.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: lightning on January 15, 2021, 01:51:41 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

Equivalency may not have been your point, but, again I agree with you here, because "equivalency" was not my point, either. My point is that this thread that you started, by trying to start a general discussion about appropriate responses to protests/riots in general, is a distraction to take attention away from the real issues. It's a typical right-wing apologist distraction tactic. Get people talking about riots and arguing about #BLM, instead of focusing on the heinous attempt to overturn the US government and the culpability of those that were aligned with it, in thought, word, and/or deed, and discussing the path forward for justice and ultimately unity.

To answer your boldface question. I've already mentioned this once, already, but here it is again.
Let's start with the simplest of scenarios and the rule governing the scenario.

If a 12-year-old African American boy, at an urban playground, points his toy gun at a cop, the cop will apply the same rule of engagement as if it were a white 12-year-old boy, at a suburban playground, pointing his toy gun at the cop. Easy peasy right? Should be an obvious application of one rule.

We know how the two scenarios have two separate endings, in actual practice, despite the stated rule. (And no, I'm not wanting to discuss the Tamir Rice murder. It's just a case study example that has played itself out too many times in our history.) #BLM started, in part, because on the most basic level, a simple interaction between cops and child, has a different rule of engagement, in practice, and those different rules depend on the color of the skin of the child. So one singular rule or singular sets of rules for engagement, for addressing large groups of people consistently, isn't possible until the most simple human interactions of 2 cops to one child, is made equitable. That is why the #BLM protests happened. Two sets of rules of engagement, depending on the color of your skin.

Just so this is not a discussion about BLM vs. Jan. 6, I want to bring this discussion back to my objection on the intent & premise of this thread.

#BLM exists because they want to protest the multiple Tamir Rice type incidents of recent history, which is rooted in the racist history of the USA, going all the way back to slavery.

Jan. 6 was terrorism. Insurrection. Treason. Invasion. A coordinated attempt to overthrow an elected government, with Republican enablers and silent cheerleaders and a right-wing media mis-representing it to its loyal followers, with lies, and through the lens of white supremacy and hate. There's a reason that the Confederate flag was waved and carried proudly by the insurrectionists on the Capitol grounds.

Jan. 6 was not merely a riot. It was much more sinister than that.

But I get it. In 2020, Republicans and MAGA saw riots, and not the #BLM message. And after Jan. 6 in 2021, Republicans and MAGA want to keep the focus on a discussion about 2020 riots, not just for the distraction but also, it frames the Jan. 6 MAGA/Trump/Republican insurrection as a mere riot rather than what it is, violent insurrection and treason and terrorism. It would save Republicans and MAGA and Trump from having to confront the more important issues surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol invasion, most importantly, their role in it, whether direct or indirect. It's the only argument, really, that MAGA has. Because if we actually discussed the Jan. 6 event without making comparisons to 2020 riots, you would have to keep your discussion on why Republicans and MAGA and Trump are or are not culpable and should or should not be prosecuted for treason/terrorism/insurrection, for their role in Jan. 6.

For Republicans, Trump, MAGA, and those that don't profess to like Trump or MAGA (but who still vote with him, vote for him, and support  him anyway), there's some serious cognitive dissonance happening, I'm sure. Talking about #BLM 2020 riots, means that cognitive dissonance does not have to be confronted. So I get why this thread needs to exist for you.

I'm done with this thread because we just seem to be repeating ourselves and it serves only to perpetuate the distraction, which is what you intended.

But I had to join this train wreck because, I couldn't let it go unchallenged.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: spork on January 15, 2021, 02:12:48 PM
One appropriate response to rioting is for sworn police officers not to participate:

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/956896923/police-officers-across-nation-face-federal-charges-for-involvement-in-capitol-ri (https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/956896923/police-officers-across-nation-face-federal-charges-for-involvement-in-capitol-ri).

Funny, I've never heard of any police officers being arrested for participating in rioting related to BLM protests.

^And what lightning wrote. The January 6 events were an attempt by a sitting President and some members of Congress, among others, to overturn the results of a free and fair election that their side lost.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 02:16:00 PM
Quote from: lightning on January 15, 2021, 01:51:41 PM
My point is that this thread that you started, by trying to start a general discussion about appropriate responses to protests/riots in general, is a distraction to take attention away from the real issues. It's a typical right-wing apologist distraction tactic.

You can think what you like about why I started this thread. I'm a centrist, and have voted for the Green party for several elections, FWIW. Since this year has seen protests resulting in violence from both ends of the political spectrum, it would be good if the incoming government could prevent any more from either side in the future.

But you can ascribe whatever motives you like.

Quote

To answer your boldface question. I've already mentioned this once, already, but here it is again.
Let's start with the simplest of scenarios and the rule governing the scenario.

If a 12-year-old African American boy, at an urban playground, points his toy gun at a cop, the cop will apply the same rule of engagement as if it were a white 12-year-old boy, at a suburban playground, pointing his toy gun at the cop. Easy peasy right? Should be an obvious application of one rule.

I've thought about that since you brought it up. If my 7 year old grandson, or even his 4 year old brother pointed a toy gun at a stranger, let alone a person in authority, I'm sure his parents would have a serious talk with him. That is extremely disrespectful.

A 12 year old should know way better than to do such a thing. It's not just a "kids will be kids" thing; that shows terrible parenting, no matter what colour skin the kid has.

And if it's a neighborhood where kids that age are actually recruited by gangs, then it's no surprise if a cop takes it as a real threat, and a kid in that kind of neighborhood should REALLY know not to do it.
(Or, if the kid is from a rural area with lots of hunting, pointing a "toy" rifle at a cop would be equally idiotic.)

Quote
if we actually discussed the Jan. 6 event without making comparisons to 2020 riots, you would have to keep your discussion on why Republicans and MAGA and Trump are or are not culpable and should or should not be prosecuted for treason/terrorism/insurrection, for their role in Jan. 6.

You can start a thread for that if you like. I'm interested in how to prevent riots in the first place. That's better than having to assign blame after the fact with all of the damage including deaths that can't be undone.

Quote
For Republicans, Trump, MAGA, and those that don't profess to like Trump or MAGA (but who still vote with him, vote for him, and support  him anyway), there's some serious cognitive dissonance happening, I'm sure. Talking about #BLM 2020 riots, means that cognitive dissonance does not have to be confronted. So I get why this thread needs to exist for you.

I'm done with this thread because we just seem to be repeating ourselves and it serves only to perpetuate the distraction, which is what you intended.

But I had to join this train wreck because, I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

In an academic forum, it's pretty normal to use individual events to discuss broader issues. Who is responsible for the Jan. 6 events is one broader issue, but how to prevent riots is another. I'm more interested in the latter, even if you're more interested in the former.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: pgher on January 15, 2021, 03:58:14 PM
This column (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/15/false-comparison-between-last-summers-protests-what-happened-capitol/) seems relevant to the current discussion. The bullet point distinctions between BLM protests and January 6:
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 04:43:04 PM
Quote from: pgher on January 15, 2021, 03:58:14 PM
This column (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/15/false-comparison-between-last-summers-protests-what-happened-capitol/) seems relevant to the current discussion. The bullet point distinctions between BLM protests and January 6:

  • The intent of the Jan. 6 protest was far more nefarious. Disrupting democracy vs. drawing attention to systemic injustice.
  • The Capitol riots stemmed from a lie. Widespread election fraud is a lie vs. George Floyd was actually killed.
  • The encouragement of political leaders was not the same. President Trump encouraged the riot vs. Democratic leaders spoke mostly after the fact and always drew a bright line between protesters and rioters.
  • Hundreds of peaceful protests happened last summer. One violent protest happened last week.
  • Whataboutism isn't an excuse. Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg tweeted, "If my kid shoplifts, she'll be punished. If she complains her friend's parents don't care about shoplifting so it's unfair for me to punish her, I'll say "I don't care what they do" (even though I do care and I'll make a stink later). None of that changes what's right."

Everything is about perceived motivation. Nothing is about action. Is this to suggest that there are no rules about any actions being simply wrong, regardless of the reason? Since every individual in society has their own thoughts and viewpoints, it's hard to see how any universal moral code can be agreed upon.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 04:47:43 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 01:26:26 PM

Man, you really like to conflate issues.  The BLM were not based on how police handle protests or riots, as you know.

They are also not just about George Floyd, as you know.

You can attack his character all you want, but there are many more examples.

When an autopsy or a police report contains the information that people for some reason absolutely loathe hearing, namely that Floyd was high and likely overdosing on street drugs, not very compliant are they attacking his character? Seriously, are you an academic? I thought folks like you were interested in facts.
These things don't matter because they might matter to me. i wasn't considering demonstrating, or not, depending on the details. However, just for a little perspective...
A few years ago I had a black friend, an urban dweller, now deceased, probably born around 1915. He lived alone in the building his family owned. He always dressed like a bum, so no one would think he had any possessions, kept a big ugly dog, and said hi to all the neighborhood junkies and drug dealers every time he passed them. He would have been happy to see Floyd rot in prison. He would have no tears for the man. He was conservative. Do you ever hang out with black people?
BLM is largely based on hysteria that's been reacted to with near total buy-in from many who ought to be smarter than that. There are other stories than Floyd and often just as misunderstood. Example, 'Hands up, don't shoot was a lie" --https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/
Last summer the protests were mostly based on the assumption that George Floyd was murdered, by many of various races who were also misinformed about Ferguson. The Floyd case probably won't bring a conviction. 'The wheels of justice grind slow but fine.'
I guarantee you there are many blacks who are tired of BLM madness, and not all of them are writers for Prager U or Epoch Times.
Academics are hoping BLM hysteria will help them keep republicans out of office. These are the same people who lament that people are not better informed.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 04:58:30 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 04:47:43 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 15, 2021, 01:26:26 PM

Man, you really like to conflate issues.  The BLM were not based on how police handle protests or riots, as you know.

They are also not just about George Floyd, as you know.

You can attack his character all you want, but there are many more examples.

When an autopsy or a police report contains the information that people for some reason absolutely loathe hearing, namely that Floyd was high and likely overdosing on street drugs, not very compliant are they attacking his character? Seriously, are you an academic? I thought folks like you were interested in facts.
These things don't matter because they might matter to me. i wasn't considering demonstrating, or not, depending on the details. However, just for a little perspective...
A few years ago I had a black friend, an urban dweller, now deceased, probably born around 1915. He lived alone in the building his family owned. He always dressed like a bum, so no one would think he had any possessions, kept a big ugly dog, and said hi to all the neighborhood junkies and drug dealers every time he passed them. He would have been happy to see Floyd rot in prison. He would have no tears for the man. He was conservative. Do you ever hang out with black people?
BLM is largely based on hysteria that's been reacted to with near total buy-in from many who ought to be smarter than that. There are other stories than Floyd and often just as misunderstood. Example, 'Hands up, don't shoot was a lie" --https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/
Last summer the protests were mostly based on the assumption that George Floyd was murdered, by many of various races who were also misinformed about Ferguson. The Floyd case probably won't bring a conviction. 'The wheels of justice grind slow but fine.'
I guarantee you there are many blacks who are tired of BLM madness, and not all of them are writers for Prager U or Epoch Times.

No matter if he was high, a junkie, or worse, the police were in the wrong.  Did we watch different videos? 

I don't care if you "knew a black guy that would agree with you". 

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 05:06:05 PM
The police were in the wrong and that is agreed upon. That's why they don't have jobs any more. The higher murder charge against Chauvin happened several days later because of public outcry which happened in the atmosphere of very incomplete information, intentionally controlled. You don't take fentanyl and amphetamine recreationally unless you are into taking big chances with your life. This is of interest to some. When Derek is acquitted let's talk about this again.
I see you didn't care to comment on the inspiration for BLM, the Ferguson incident.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Descartes on January 15, 2021, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: lightning on January 15, 2021, 01:51:41 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 14, 2021, 04:38:48 PM
I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

Equivalency may not have been your point, but, again I agree with you here, because "equivalency" was not my point, either. My point is that this thread that you started, by trying to start a general discussion about appropriate responses to protests/riots in general, is a distraction to take attention away from the real issues. It's a typical right-wing apologist distraction tactic. Get people talking about riots and arguing about #BLM, instead of focusing on the heinous attempt to overturn the US government and the culpability of those that were aligned with it, in thought, word, and/or deed, and discussing the path forward for justice and ultimately unity.

To answer your boldface question. I've already mentioned this once, already, but here it is again.
Let's start with the simplest of scenarios and the rule governing the scenario.

If a 12-year-old African American boy, at an urban playground, points his toy gun at a cop, the cop will apply the same rule of engagement as if it were a white 12-year-old boy, at a suburban playground, pointing his toy gun at the cop. Easy peasy right? Should be an obvious application of one rule.

We know how the two scenarios have two separate endings, in actual practice, despite the stated rule. (And no, I'm not wanting to discuss the Tamir Rice murder. It's just a case study example that has played itself out too many times in our history.) #BLM started, in part, because on the most basic level, a simple interaction between cops and child, has a different rule of engagement, in practice, and those different rules depend on the color of the skin of the child. So one singular rule or singular sets of rules for engagement, for addressing large groups of people consistently, isn't possible until the most simple human interactions of 2 cops to one child, is made equitable. That is why the #BLM protests happened. Two sets of rules of engagement, depending on the color of your skin.

Just so this is not a discussion about BLM vs. Jan. 6, I want to bring this discussion back to my objection on the intent & premise of this thread.

#BLM exists because they want to protest the multiple Tamir Rice type incidents of recent history, which is rooted in the racist history of the USA, going all the way back to slavery.

Jan. 6 was terrorism. Insurrection. Treason. Invasion. A coordinated attempt to overthrow an elected government, with Republican enablers and silent cheerleaders and a right-wing media mis-representing it to its loyal followers, with lies, and through the lens of white supremacy and hate. There's a reason that the Confederate flag was waved and carried proudly by the insurrectionists on the Capitol grounds.

Jan. 6 was not merely a riot. It was much more sinister than that.

But I get it. In 2020, Republicans and MAGA saw riots, and not the #BLM message. And after Jan. 6 in 2021, Republicans and MAGA want to keep the focus on a discussion about 2020 riots, not just for the distraction but also, it frames the Jan. 6 MAGA/Trump/Republican insurrection as a mere riot rather than what it is, violent insurrection and treason and terrorism. It would save Republicans and MAGA and Trump from having to confront the more important issues surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol invasion, most importantly, their role in it, whether direct or indirect. It's the only argument, really, that MAGA has. Because if we actually discussed the Jan. 6 event without making comparisons to 2020 riots, you would have to keep your discussion on why Republicans and MAGA and Trump are or are not culpable and should or should not be prosecuted for treason/terrorism/insurrection, for their role in Jan. 6.

For Republicans, Trump, MAGA, and those that don't profess to like Trump or MAGA (but who still vote with him, vote for him, and support  him anyway), there's some serious cognitive dissonance happening, I'm sure. Talking about #BLM 2020 riots, means that cognitive dissonance does not have to be confronted. So I get why this thread needs to exist for you.

I'm done with this thread because we just seem to be repeating ourselves and it serves only to perpetuate the distraction, which is what you intended.

But I had to join this train wreck because, I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

You can "not want to talk about it" all you want but you brought it up.

Why was the 12 year old on a playground in Cleveland treated differently than a 12 year old in the suburbs?  For starters because the suburbs fire guys who handle incidents like this before they get a chance to handle an incident like this! (Research it. This exact officer worked for a suburban dept. and didn't do well. I don't think he was actually fired but it was made clear to him that resigning would be the best thing he could do. He then lied to Cleveland, who didn't seem to do a thorough enough background investigation  - because their hiring is and has been a shit show for years!)

So, yet again,  I see factors that don't have anything to do with race at play.  I rarely see clear indications that race was a controlling factor in ANY police use of force incident,  including ones that are clearly unlawful or used poor judgment.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 06:22:53 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 15, 2021, 02:16:00 PM

I've thought about that since you brought it up. If my 7 year old grandson, or even his 4 year old brother pointed a toy gun at a stranger, let alone a person in authority, I'm sure his parents would have a serious talk with him. That is extremely disrespectful.

A 12 year old should know way better than to do such a thing. It's not just a "kids will be kids" thing; that shows terrible parenting, no matter what colour skin the kid has.


Or it could be the result of successful elite education. Parents are with their kids, what, three or four hours a per day, compared with six or seven at school. Here's a school where black kids are taught that the white man is their enemy.

https://nypost.com/2016/07/17/elite-schools-exceptionally-racist-diversity-head-will-not-return/

""Ever since Ferguson, the school has been increasing anti-white propaganda in its curriculum," said a parent who requested anonymity because he has children currently enrolled in the school.'

https://nypost.com/2016/07/01/elite-k-8-school-teaches-white-students-theyre-born-racist/
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 16, 2021, 05:10:21 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 15, 2021, 05:06:05 PM
The police were in the wrong and that is agreed upon. That's why they don't have jobs any more. The higher murder charge against Chauvin happened several days later because of public outcry which happened in the atmosphere of very incomplete information, intentionally controlled. You don't take fentanyl and amphetamine recreationally unless you are into taking big chances with your life. This is of interest to some. When Derek is acquitted let's talk about this again.
I see you didn't care to comment on the inspiration for BLM, the Ferguson incident.

These are only the straws the broke the camel's back.  For every George Floyd or Ferguson, there are hundreds more, including several that happened during the movement.  There is no point is discussing the particulars of every single one.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 16, 2021, 05:15:58 AM
You can attack the character of George, and explain away some of these incidents, but the fact remains that you are more likely to die from police if you are black to Han if you are white.  This is a problem no?

I think it is also a part of a bigger problem in the US, as police caused deaths are dramatically higher there than in most countries. 

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 16, 2021, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 16, 2021, 05:15:58 AM
You can attack the character of George, and explain away some of these incidents, but the fact remains that you are more likely to die from police if you are black to Han if you are white.  This is a problem no?

I think it is also a part of a bigger problem in the US, as police caused deaths are dramatically higher there than in most countries. 



Well, how was Floyd's failing of character not a problem to him, and illustrative of one or two of the issues?

It's a minor problem, but can you encourage people how to stay out of the criminal justice system by (1) living smart and (2) managing their encounters with police intelligently, or do you want to talk about statistics and hold demonstrations? How about working on problems?
It's not a problem to white liberals who wield influence. It's a way to get votes for their candidate without earning them. By selling them a message of defeat and dependence on the safety net. The bigger problems facing black urban communities are street crime, fatherless homes, poor educational settings, higher cost of housing, poor diet/obesity. Working on these is a lot harder than saying 'I know --- let's hire a big time racial studies author to come to our campus and lecture us about decolonizing our world, and all pledge allegiance to this world view, which presents an obstentibly serious agenda that, when you look closer, has no clear measurable outcomes and no timetable for meeting goals, and actually, not even any goals. Does nothing for any real problem facing the poor but absolves the white man of guilt related to America's past.' But the good news: some of this work doesn't involve that much money. It involves thinking better.
the hard work:
Give the white man/woman their moral confidence back. They are now done creeping around, apologizing for having a savings account and male relatives they know; they're free to speak and interact in nurturing ways with young people of all races, including a pinch of tough love and criticism where it's needed.
Control immigration so the demand for rented housing and unskilled labor doesn't skyrocket.
Give authority and class control opportunities back to the K-12 teachers.
Stop glamorizing trash popular culture that provides examples to kids of street thugs, gangsters elevated to the stature of artists and philosophers.
Let the black devout Christians in academia come out of the closet so they won't be nervous about fitting into the culture so they can compete for the real jobs.
Put more conservatives in academia so when higher education advertises diversity it will actually be true.
End the corporate 'anti-racism' chanting and grandstanding. Corporate America, focus back on making stuff, jobs, gouging us for prescription drugs. What works. We don't need you for moral guidance.
Get rid of the academic workforce caste system.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: dismalist on January 16, 2021, 03:09:35 PM
QuoteI think it is also a part of a bigger problem in the US, as police caused deaths are dramatically higher there than in most countries.

This is true, and it is true for whites, too. We need to make some experiments:

Have white US police enforce the law in Sweden, and see what happens. I'd wager on a dramatic reduction in  deaths cause by US police compared to those caused in the United States

The capital of  Angola, Luanda, has approximately the same police deaths per 10 million as the United States. Undertake the same experiment. I would wager on a reduction in deaths caused by white US police compared to those caused by local police in that city.

Here's the Wikipedia page with the data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_by_country

Racism seems to be the default for all differences in outcomes. That is the same as attributing a measure of our ignorance to racism.

Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 21, 2021, 06:20:02 AM
What's really different about January 6 and this past summer is January 6 was a true rebellion against the establishment. That doesn't automatically make it constructive or justified or intelligent. To me it wasn't much of any of those things. Whereas Black Lives Matter is not much of a rebellion. It's more a piece of the establishment itself, the victimist culture of the democratic party fortifying itself over years to the point of boiling over. As Shelby Steele explains it's an emulation of the 60's civil rights movement that falls short in substance. But being a big piece of the establishment, and also somewhat militant, it could become its own problem. Now it will be President Biden's job to either stop the property destruction and violence of demonstrations gone wild, or enable them, should they happen. Fault lines might appear. If Derek Chauvin is acquitted I expect riots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dw8JRYkpI
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Kron3007 on January 21, 2021, 06:45:07 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 21, 2021, 06:20:02 AM
What's really different about January 6 and this past summer is January 6 was a true rebellion against the establishment. That doesn't automatically make it constructive or justified or intelligent. To me it wasn't much of any of those things. Whereas Black Lives Matter is not much of a rebellion. It's more a piece of the establishment itself, the victimist culture of the democratic party fortifying itself over years to the point of boiling over. As Shelby Steele explains it's an emulation of the 60's civil rights movement that falls short in substance. But being a big piece of the establishment, and also somewhat militant, it could become its own problem. Now it will be President Biden's job to either stop the property destruction and violence of demonstrations gone wild, or enable them, should they happen. Fault lines might appear. If Derek Chauvin is acquitted I expect riots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dw8JRYkpI

It's amazing how differently things can be interpreted from different perspectives.  I would argue almost the opposite.

The BLM movement is protesting long standing systemic racism created by the establishment.  One thing you seem to misunderstand, or perhaps twist to fit your narrative, is that the BLM protests are not against republicans specifically or alone.  They are against systemic racism that has developed under both parties.  It is true that the BLM protesters are predominantly democrats and support that party, but that does not mean that the democrats are not also responsible for creating the problem.  The difference is that democratic leadership at least recognizes that this is a problem, making them the obvious choice to work with to try to fix it.  You discuss vicimism as if standing up for equality is wrong.  If you were consistently discriminated against, would it be wrong to stand up for yourself?  When the poor repressed white guys occupy government buildings with loaded weapons they are patriots, but Kaepernick is playing the victim card?

On the flip side, the insurrection was not an attack on the establishment as such, it was an attack against a fair and democratic election (as democratic as the US system is anyway) spurred by a would-be dictator who has repeatedly "joked" about staying beyond the clear term limits.  So, I guess you could consider this an attack against the establishment, but it goes deeper and was an attack against democracy itself and the American consition.  If anyone is playing the victim card, it is these yahoos.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 21, 2021, 07:07:34 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 21, 2021, 06:45:07 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 21, 2021, 06:20:02 AM
What's really different about January 6 and this past summer is January 6 was a true rebellion against the establishment. That doesn't automatically make it constructive or justified or intelligent. To me it wasn't much of any of those things. Whereas Black Lives Matter is not much of a rebellion. It's more a piece of the establishment itself, the victimist culture of the democratic party fortifying itself over years to the point of boiling over. As Shelby Steele explains it's an emulation of the 60's civil rights movement that falls short in substance. But being a big piece of the establishment, and also somewhat militant, it could become its own problem. Now it will be President Biden's job to either stop the property destruction and violence of demonstrations gone wild, or enable them, should they happen. Fault lines might appear. If Derek Chauvin is acquitted I expect riots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dw8JRYkpI

It's amazing how differently things can be interpreted from different perspectives.  I would argue almost the opposite.

The BLM movement is protesting long standing systemic racism created by the establishment.  One thing you seem to misunderstand, or perhaps twist to fit your narrative, is that the BLM protests are not against republicans specifically or alone.  They are against systemic racism that has developed under both parties.  It is true that the BLM protesters are predominantly democrats and support that party, but that does not mean that the democrats are not also responsible for creating the problem.  The difference is that democratic leadership at least recognizes that this is a problem, making them the obvious choice to work with to try to fix it.  You discuss vicimism as if standing up for equality is wrong.  If you were consistently discriminated against, would it be wrong to stand up for yourself?

It wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but I would expect to have to show explicitly the ways in which I have been discriminated against without exaggerating before having the likelihood of getting the attention of anyone not already in my camp. Even then, while it wouldn't necessarily be wrong it could easily be darned unimpressive if it were already evident that I was not availing myself of abundant opportunities for success that already existed.
Another piece of this: having people working while poor and scuffling for health insurance is not something the democrats want to do anything about. Many of them think it's just fine. That's why they brand college instructors 'adjunct' and 'part time.' They are trying to parlay the moral high ground for themselves, and it doesn't work.
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: Sun_Worshiper on January 21, 2021, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 21, 2021, 06:45:07 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 21, 2021, 06:20:02 AM
What's really different about January 6 and this past summer is January 6 was a true rebellion against the establishment. That doesn't automatically make it constructive or justified or intelligent. To me it wasn't much of any of those things. Whereas Black Lives Matter is not much of a rebellion. It's more a piece of the establishment itself, the victimist culture of the democratic party fortifying itself over years to the point of boiling over. As Shelby Steele explains it's an emulation of the 60's civil rights movement that falls short in substance. But being a big piece of the establishment, and also somewhat militant, it could become its own problem. Now it will be President Biden's job to either stop the property destruction and violence of demonstrations gone wild, or enable them, should they happen. Fault lines might appear. If Derek Chauvin is acquitted I expect riots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dw8JRYkpI

It's amazing how differently things can be interpreted from different perspectives.  I would argue almost the opposite.

The BLM movement is protesting long standing systemic racism created by the establishment.  One thing you seem to misunderstand, or perhaps twist to fit your narrative, is that the BLM protests are not against republicans specifically or alone.  They are against systemic racism that has developed under both parties.  It is true that the BLM protesters are predominantly democrats and support that party, but that does not mean that the democrats are not also responsible for creating the problem.  The difference is that democratic leadership at least recognizes that this is a problem, making them the obvious choice to work with to try to fix it.  You discuss vicimism as if standing up for equality is wrong.  If you were consistently discriminated against, would it be wrong to stand up for yourself?  When the poor repressed white guys occupy government buildings with loaded weapons they are patriots, but Kaepernick is playing the victim card?

On the flip side, the insurrection was not an attack on the establishment as such, it was an attack against a fair and democratic election (as democratic as the US system is anyway) spurred by a would-be dictator who has repeatedly "joked" about staying beyond the clear term limits.  So, I guess you could consider this an attack against the establishment, but it goes deeper and was an attack against democracy itself and the American consition.  If anyone is playing the victim card, it is these yahoos.

Yes this interpretation tracks much more with reality, as I see it.

BLM is hardly "a piece of the establishment itself," but rather a protest against the structural racism that is characterizes the establishment. The Capital attack is both anti-establishment (in that it is attacking the US political system) and pro-establishment (in that it is in support of the leader of the US).
Title: Re: Appropriate response to rioting
Post by: mahagonny on January 21, 2021, 01:42:46 PM
Liberal academics though do not expect dramatic lasting improvement in the lives of the black man and woman from this activism. They are too smart for that. Their primary interest is either, as Shelby Steele explained, a sense of being cleansed from the guilt of America's inhumane past, or a stimulation to the activism market, which means more democrats elected, more funding for education (ka-ching!), more promotions to full professor, more books sold, a few more blacks on the faculty, mostly teaching race studies and such which don't markedly lift up black Americans and contribute to another young wave of adjuncts, but these things are barely noticed, and the presence of more POC with some of the good jobs makes everyone look good.
Well, as long as I'm postulating that, I can be polite enough to ask: what do you think will come of this activism? And remember, the complaints are
1. income disparity.
2. police brutality
(though if you consider the amount of homicide, disorderly conduct, domestic violence, street drugs etc. police have to deal with, we might consider ourselves lucky if they do as good a job in 2021 as they did in 2020.)