I think I'm going to love Oakland

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Except my actual argument is being ignored. I am not saying riots are good or that they should be used to establish or protect social progress. I'm saying they are a negative consequence of social dysfunction, and that if Joe Sixpack doesn't like what happens in a riot, then he is obliged to do something at the social level to ensure they don't happen.

[The Wizard]

Then say that, clearly and concisely. And don't confuse the topic by talking about "successful riots" and then giving revolts and revolutions as examples.

[Jenne]

I think civil unrest has its place in polemics.  I think without it, you do have a level of complacency that does nothing but breed opression.  Freedom to express outrage and frustration, en masse, is a gift of liberty that I think we can easily take for granted.  I mean, it wasn't too long ago in US history that it was automatic given that if "certain people" rioted they'd get the hose, dogs and tear gas from the get-go.

Civil unrest is that nasty nubbin in political life that police hate, because it can go from organization to instant chaos in a heartbeat.  One minute you have a peaceful protest, and the next, you have a whole town burning down.  The wikiepedia entry on "civil disorder" summarizes the main points nicely--sometimes the things that caused the civil unrest are very often those same things that are actuated as a result (loss of life, loss of liberty, loss of property, loss of utilities and basic necessities).

As to who is culpable and who "deserves" it...we are all responsible for the society we live in, true.  We are all "in it together," but to say we deserve to be hit by the backhand of in/justice is going a bit too far.  That's like saying someone who died in a car crash deserved it because they had the audacity to ride along as someone's passenger.  The fact they are helping to cut carbon emissions by ridesharing is automatically thrown out the window (pun unintended, there).  Likewise, someone who spends their time being law-abiding, putting food on the table and is FINE with doing so is not contributing overtly to the machine but rather paying taxes that support schools, roads and libraries, meanwhile making sure their kids are warm, safe and fed.

There's a bigger picture here.  For both sides of this argument.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

This is why I would never be a good politician. I thought I WAS being clear. As for the confusion about successful riots I still think my point is valid, but for the sake of peace and harmony I won't pursue it.

[Bruno]

Except my actual argument is being ignored. I am not saying riots are good or that they should be used to establish or protect social progress. I'm saying they are a negative consequence of social dysfunction, and that if Joe Sixpack doesn't like what happens in a riot, then he is obliged to do something at the social level to ensure they don't happen.

You mean like voting for the biggest, meanest, ugliest sherrif in the next election?

ETA: Oh, you said social level.

...Form a posse. String 'em up. None of that gay ass "fair trial" bullshit. That never works.

[Requia ☣]

If riots correlated with a dysfunctional society, Pheonix would have burned to the ground years ago.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You can still cause severe economic dislocation without mass violence.  Thai airport protests are a perfect example: find an economic choke point, and sit on it.

It's the only sort of protest worth doing though because, you know, if you wanna just parade up and down a street, I wouldn't take your opinions very seriously as a person in a position of power.

And if they burn down the houses of the working and/or middle class, well, there's more where they came from, right?

Who's house got burned down in Oakland?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Except my actual argument is being ignored. I am not saying riots are good or that they should be used to establish or protect social progress. I'm saying they are a negative consequence of social dysfunction, and that if Joe Sixpack doesn't like what happens in a riot, then he is obliged to do something at the social level to ensure they don't happen.

You mean like voting for the biggest, meanest, ugliest sherrif in the next election?

ETA: Oh, you said social level.

...Form a posse. String 'em up. None of that gay ass "fair trial" bullshit. That never works.

Yeah I'm done trying to have constructive discussions now. If you need me I'll be in the PD forum babbling about my pineal gland.

[The Wizard]

Yeah I'm done trying to have constructive discussions now. If you need me I'll be in the PD forum babbling about my pineal gland.

Wonderful reaction. Instead of actually rephrasing your arguments or maybe, I don't know, considering other people's ideas to see if they have merit, you get pissed and flounce off. Lovely.

If you're going to get into an argument with people, have the stones to either produce solid, understandable points or admit that you may be wrong.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sure. When the riot's over and you have enough evidence to prosecute the douchebag who burned down Joe's house, then yeah... by all means prosecute. As for Joe's culpability - maybe the fact that he has to spend every waking moment making the rent should tip him off that something isn't right. Maybe he can't spend every waking hour "building community." Maybe it should be important enough to spend a couple of hours when he'd otherwise be asleep, though.

Have you ever done blue collar work, Vex?

Yeah, actually. And it sucks. By some definitions, what I do now is blue-collar work. But it doesn't completely remove a person's responsibilities.

When did a riot produce anything more than property damage, injury, death, and police clampdowns?

In general, successful riots are not referred to as riots in the history books.

Oh?  What are they called?  Can you give us an example?

Sobibor
Haitian Revolution
1733 slave insurrection on St. John

These are rebellions of the oppressed against oppressors; classic 'revolution' rebellions where an underclass challenged and overcame a ruling class - riots, of course, are smaller versions of the same thing. But when they are put down, they are considered riots. When they're successful, it's because the underdogs won against their oppressors. Like the difference between "insurrection" and "revolution;" history is written by the victors, etc.

Well, I suppose the view is a lot better from that ivory tower of yours.

So we can talk about Big Ideas here, so long as it has nothing to do with real life?

1.  Responsibilities?  Name them, please.

2.  Oh, you mean a revolution.  I thought we were talking about a riot.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If riots correlated with a dysfunctional society, Pheonix would have burned to the ground years ago.

THIS.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Wonderful reaction. Instead of actually rephrasing your arguments or maybe, I don't know, considering other people's ideas to see if they have merit, you get pissed and flounce off. Lovely.

If you're going to get into an argument with people, have the stones to either produce solid, understandable points or admit that you may be wrong.

I've spent 3 pages now rephrasing, refining, and reconsidering. If that isn't clear at this point, flouncing is apparently all that's left, besides you're right guise I guess I was completely wrong.

I'm not completely wrong, IMHO. But all I can do now is repeat myself over and over again and be insulted for not giving in to this sudden endorsement of the idea that everything will be fine if you just behave yourself. For all the inflammatory chest-beating rants around here about tearing society apart at the seams because what we have Just Ain't Workin', people sure do get offended when somebody actually does it. Maybe I'm just not catching on to the enlightened double-entendre of apocalyptic literature, though.

The only point I'm trying to make in this entire overheated exchange is that shit happens: bring a shovel or be prepared to smell it. To claim that society at large (read: every single individual who is part of that society) is blameless for the actions of those most disaffected by its policies is naive.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Yeah I'm done trying to have constructive discussions now. If you need me I'll be in the PD forum babbling about my pineal gland.

Wonderful reaction. Instead of actually rephrasing your arguments or maybe, I don't know, considering other people's ideas to see if they have merit, you get pissed and flounce off. Lovely.

If you're going to get into an argument with people, have the stones to either produce solid, understandable points or admit that you may be wrong.

If you're going to post in this thread, have the stones to to do some of this "producing solid, understandable points" and "considering other people's ideas," or admit that you're just being a hypocritical douchebag.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You can still cause severe economic dislocation without mass violence.  Thai airport protests are a perfect example: find an economic choke point, and sit on it.

It's the only sort of protest worth doing though because, you know, if you wanna just parade up and down a street, I wouldn't take your opinions very seriously as a person in a position of power.

And if they burn down the houses of the working and/or middle class, well, there's more where they came from, right?

Who's house got burned down in Oakland?

I'm still curious about how the actual Oakland riot referenced in the OP either literally destroyed someone's home or metaphorically did and who these people might be.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I think I notice a strange mismatch in descriptions of the Machine, here.

If the Machine is a mindless metaconspiracy that sets conditions which cause people to behave in a certain way, then why are riots and civil unrest any less "programmed" than people brainlessly going to work 40 hours a work doing shit that doesn't really need to be done? Why, when the action crosses the (usually subjective) line from "complacence" into "negative behavior" territory, is it suddenly 100% personal responsibility?