Appropriate response to rioting

[mahagonny]

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?

[jimbogumbo]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[Kron3007]

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

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.

[mahagonny]

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

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.

[lightning]

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 . . . .

[mahagonny]

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.

[dismalist]

Dear All,

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

[mahagonny]

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...

[marshwiggle]

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?

[Kron3007]

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.

[writingprof]

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?

[marshwiggle]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.'