Maus revised for present times

[mamselle]

Has any clarity been established about the nationality of the truckers, by the way?

In other words, are they Americans just there to make trouble, or is it actual Canadians with specific greivances?

Or a blend of the two?

The national complexion of the group would seem to be pertinent, both to how the issue is handled, and who is actually allowed to be in the country.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

What specific police escalation justified torching and looting buildings?

When a peaceful protest against police brutality is met with police brutality, it's not surprising when violence follows in kind. It may not be justified, but it's not surprising--and, crucially, the police response itself was unjustified.

But that's entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand, isn't it?

What are the rules for when that kind of response (i.e. destruction of property)  is acceptable?

The rules are codified as real numbers somewhere between 0 and 1. But I would say that the destruction of property in a protest--especially insured property--is always preferable to maiming or killing a person.

But, again, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Has any clarity been established about the nationality of the truckers, by the way?

In other words, are they Americans just there to make trouble, or is it actual Canadians with specific greivances?

Or a blend of the two?

The national complexion of the group would seem to be pertinent, both to how the issue is handled, and who is actually allowed to be in the country.

M.

As far as I'm aware, they're Canadian (whether they're actually truckers is another matter). Although judging from what some are saying, it seems like many wish they were American. As far as anyone can tell, however, a significant portion of their funding is not (I would assume the non-Canadian portion is mostly American).

[mahagonny]

"Convincing the most people"; GREAT IDEA! I fully support that.

"Drowning out the competition"; TERRIBLE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC IDEA! I heartily oppose that.
I haven't heard any research showing that the person with the loudest voice is more accurate than anyone else. Or that using a megaphone bends the fabric of reality in line with your words.

LOUD DOES NOT MEAN RIGHT!!!!!!!!

Who said it did? If anything, posters' experience on this here forum should confirm pretty quickly that the loudest voices are not the most accurate.

I don't know how you define 'loudest voice' but if you use my definition I agree. The loudest voice here is the new liberal orthodoxy, because it  has the greatest number of proponents. One opera singer even with a strong (and more musical) voice does not compete with the decibels of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
The forum self selects for that type too. Writingprof is gone having clearly let us know he left for that reason; Economizer is rarely heard from. Marshwiggle was getting called a right wing troll six months ago but lately has struck a more conciliatory tone.
Does volume make you right? The jury is still out.

Quote from: marshwiggle on Today at 09:44:09 AM


What specific police escalation justified torching and looting buildings?


When a peaceful protest against police brutality is met with police brutality, it's not surprising when violence follows in kind. It may not be justified, but it's not surprising--and, crucially, the police response itself was unjustified.

I'm entitled to police who do their job perfectly, dammit! What do you think I pay taxes for?

[marshwiggle]

What are the rules for when that kind of response (i.e. destruction of property)  is acceptable?

The rules are codified as real numbers somewhere between 0 and 1. But I would say that the destruction of property in a protest--especially insured property--is always preferable to maiming or killing a person.

In an ideal world where everyone could know with absolute certainty that some "insured property" doesn't actually contain any person, then you may have a point. If a property owner refuses to leave their property, and rioters are going to torch the property with them inside, is it acceptable to stop the rioters with force, even by potentially killing them, since the property owner has the choice of leaving? (If, so then why can't the same logic dictate that the rioters have the choice to stand down, and if they do so will not be subject to deadly force?)

[Parasaurolophus]

In an ideal world where everyone could know with absolute certainty that some "insured property" doesn't actually contain any person, then you may have a point. If a property owner refuses to leave their property, and rioters are going to torch the property with them inside, is it acceptable to stop the rioters with force, even by potentially killing them, since the property owner has the choice of leaving? (If, so then why can't the same logic dictate that the rioters have the choice to stand down, and if they do so will not be subject to deadly force?)

Oh please, we're talking about shop windows getting broken, not kristallnacht.

Besides which, when there is rioting and looting (which is rare), it's seldom the actual rioters and looters who are fired upon by police. It's the rest of the crowd. In which case, applying your standard consistently would have us conclude that the chances of maiming or killing someone with a gas canister or rubber bullets are much higher than the chances that someone inside the building will be hurt, and since it's the crowd, the chances are even higher that the person in question is innocent. Thus, the cops should stand down.


What I'm getting from you is that protests should (1) be unobtrusive, (2) be conducted somewhere out-of-the-way, (3) should not disrupt anyone else's workday or daily activities, (4) should feature exceptional self-policing otherwise they're riots, and (5) can express dissatisfaction but should make no demands, because otherwise that's the extortionate rule of a minority over the democratic majority. Is that about right?

[marshwiggle]

In an ideal world where everyone could know with absolute certainty that some "insured property" doesn't actually contain any person, then you may have a point. If a property owner refuses to leave their property, and rioters are going to torch the property with them inside, is it acceptable to stop the rioters with force, even by potentially killing them, since the property owner has the choice of leaving? (If, so then why can't the same logic dictate that the rioters have the choice to stand down, and if they do so will not be subject to deadly force?)

Oh please, we're talking about shop windows getting broken, not kristallnacht.

Besides which, when there is rioting and looting (which is rare), it's seldom the actual rioters and looters who are fired upon by police. It's the rest of the crowd. In which case, applying your standard consistently would have us conclude that the chances of maiming or killing someone with a gas canister or rubber bullets are much higher than the chances that someone inside the building will be hurt, and since it's the crowd, the chances are even higher that the person in question is innocent. Thus, the cops should stand down.


What I'm getting from you is that protests should (1) be unobtrusive, (2) be conducted somewhere out-of-the-way, (3) should not disrupt anyone else's workday or daily activities, (4) should feature exceptional self-policing otherwise they're riots, and (5) can express dissatisfaction but should make no demands, because otherwise that's the extortionate rule of a minority over the democratic majority. Is that about right?

(1) and (20): No. protests, such as marching down a street, are reasonable.
(3) depends on for how long, and what counts as "workday" or "daily" activities. for EMS and hospital workers, their "workday" activities save lives. If protests mean someone dies because they can't get lifesaving treatment, then the protesters have blood on their hands.
Also, the protest is to prevent peoples' "daily" activities as long as it takes until they cave in, then it's just extortion.
(4) If organizers really intend their protests to be peaceful, then they should be glad to provide evidence (names, video, etc.) to police of anyone using their peaceful protest as a cover for illegal activity. Shrugging and saying "not our problem" just encourages every violent nutjob to use the protest as cover for criminal activity and destruction.
(5)* "demands"? No, if that means (as in (3) that disruption will continue until they are met. Proposals,  such as how they think laws should be changed, absolutely.



*Consider the "freedom convoy" demands. 90% of Canadians, including 90% of truckers, are fully vaccinated and have been in favour of mask and vaccine mandates, etc. Caving to these "demands" or removing all covid restrictions undermines the will of the people and the actions of their democratically elected governments. Their actions are extortion.

[little bongo]

Yeah, I don't understand the reductio. You were able to say what you wanted to say, were you not?

OK, fair enough. I was. Just making conversation. I didn't know what you'd say, and now I know.

If it were up to me, this would not be the sort of place where such things could be said (as I've often said, I'd prefer a broadly "family-friendly" forum). But it isn't, so it is. 

I guess by virtue of being quoted, I am now a part of the... well, one of the most "interesting" threads I've seen in 13-odd years. At any rate, smallcleanrat has used wisdom, patience, and logic much better than I could, so I guess that's that. I will say that I get the impulse to wish unpleasant things, including death, on people--I remember when the last president got COVID, I had a few thoughts along the lines of, "Wouldn't it be cool right now if..." As smallcleanrat already made clear, though, it's probably not the best way to make a point.

Which would favor the status quo, left of center politics.
ETA: See, it is an unpleasant thing to confront. The fact that you would prefer someone die than that they go on living. But to the reader it conveys the depth of your fear of that person's influence and potential. It's more vivid than saying 'his ideas are dangerous.'
BTW, For a little perspective, back when Osama bin Laden was in his prime, if you didn't hate him and wish him dead, you were odd man out. So it's not as if we live in a society that hates hate.

[mahagonny]

I take the point about the need for disruption. We are guaranteed the right to express ourselves but that does not automatically include the chance to require anyone to listen. Certain positive changes have happened through the 'ultimatum' of disruption that Marshwiggle finds unacceptable.
Still, it is interesting though, to me anyway, to note that the power of the parents-against-the-new-way-of-teaching-about-race-and-history, etc. (notice I deftly avoid the 'CRT' mousetrap) derives primarily not from their power to disrupt, but from their sheer number. The power to disrupt may be less necessary when your ideas get momentum from people liking them. As long as we're still in a relatively free society, that is. Recall the favorite son Terry McAuliffe, now reading the help wanted ads.
Some of the school boards tried to make a fuss about 'threats to their safety' with Merrick Garland jumping in like a trained seal, but the story quickly fizzled, as it should have. You can't easily invite parents to have a relationship and then complain when they turn out to be actual persons who think. Look for the left to assert their right to disrupt as more and more people run from their platform in dismay.

[kaysixteen]

What would the Canadian government do with any Americans who were found in the midst of these protest convoys serving as agitators?

[marshwiggle]

What would the Canadian government do with any Americans who were found in the midst of these protest convoys serving as agitators?

What they should do (in this and any other protest that gets ugly) is deport them and forbid them ever entering the country again.
Confederate and Trump flags are the stupidest things in this context because they have absolutely nothing to do with Canada.

[jimbogumbo]

Trigger warning: WaPo article. Do not read if you get conniptions.

An analysis of the BLM 2020 protests, and "Antifa's" involvement. More accurately, as I claimed at the time, very geographically limited.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/08/antifa-blm-extremism-violence/

[marshwiggle]

Trigger warning: WaPo article. Do not read if you get conniptions.

An analysis of the BLM 2020 protests, and "Antifa's" involvement. More accurately, as I claimed at the time, very geographically limited.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/08/antifa-blm-extremism-violence/

Antifa's presence contributed significantly to protest violence
When antifa did attend protests, the incidence of violence was extremely high compared to the level at protests it did not attend. Of the 37 racial justice protests where antifa appeared, 11 — or 30 percent — involved injuries to the crowd; when antifa did not appear, only 2 percent of the protests involved crowd injuries. With antifa present, 14 percent of protests involved injuries to police; without antifa, only 2 percent did. When antifa showed up, 27 percent of protests involved property damage; without antifa, only 4 percent did. And when antifa appeared, 30 percent of protests involved arrests, while only 7 percent of the antifa-free protests did.

In other words, antifa appearances at racial justice protests greatly increased the risk of violence.

Nice to have it spelled out.

Even better:

But antifa shows up primarily when it wants to counter a right-wing group's appearance. So, were right-wing groups the real source of the violence? That's not what our research found. We saw no difference between events in which antifa was facing off with a group such as the Proud Boys or the Three Percenters and when they were protesting unopposed.

[jimbogumbo]

Trigger warning: WaPo article. Do not read if you get conniptions.

An analysis of the BLM 2020 protests, and "Antifa's" involvement. More accurately, as I claimed at the time, very geographically limited.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/08/antifa-blm-extremism-violence/

Antifa's presence contributed significantly to protest violence
When antifa did attend protests, the incidence of violence was extremely high compared to the level at protests it did not attend. Of the 37 racial justice protests where antifa appeared, 11 — or 30 percent — involved injuries to the crowd; when antifa did not appear, only 2 percent of the protests involved crowd injuries. With antifa present, 14 percent of protests involved injuries to police; without antifa, only 2 percent did. When antifa showed up, 27 percent of protests involved property damage; without antifa, only 4 percent did. And when antifa appeared, 30 percent of protests involved arrests, while only 7 percent of the antifa-free protests did.

In other words, antifa appearances at racial justice protests greatly increased the risk of violence.

Nice to have it spelled out.

Even better:

But antifa shows up primarily when it wants to counter a right-wing group's appearance. So, were right-wing groups the real source of the violence? That's not what our research found. We saw no difference between events in which antifa was facing off with a group such as the Proud Boys or the Three Percenters and when they were protesting unopposed.

Yeppers. I am fair and balanced. All I ever claimed was that they were limited geographically.

[kaysixteen]

I agree with you that they should do that-- do you think they would?