Principia Discordia

Quote

Police arrested 152 protesters who streamed through the streets Friday - some breaking windows and knocking down fences - after a white ex-transit officer received the minimum two-year prison sentence for fatally shooting an unarmed black man on a California train platform.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/06/national/main7029257.shtml

Too bad Portland doesn't bring the motherfucking ruckus when cops murder people and don't get any time at all.

Isn't this the officer that said he ment to reach for his taser but drew the pistol?

Quote from: Pēleus on November 07, 2010, 01:32:37 AM
Isn't this the officer that said he ment to reach for his taser but drew the pistol?

Yep, and it was caught on video: the guy wasn't struggling and face down on the ground.

That's some cold-blooded shit.

Quote from: Liam on November 07, 2010, 02:10:45 AM
Oakland riots are hardcore both with the rioters smashing up things for no reason and the police retaliating brutal hard. Its all a bit sick tbh.

I think they meant to swing their bodies in interpretive dance but accidentally broke some stuff instead.

I THINK

          pdx brings it down hard against the cops.

really? because PDX cops keep killing people for no good reason at all and nobody (including Sam Adams) ever does much of shit about it.

Fucking Humphries is still on the street carrying a gun after the Chasse incident. It took 4 incidents that were essentially murder AND a switch in who has Police Commissioner powers before Sizer got fired for having no control at all over her department, and when they tried to pull the cops involved in the Chasse incident off of the street and suspend or fire them, not only did the good citizens of PDX utter a collective yawn, but 600 or so police employees showed up yelling and protesting for the murderous officers to be fully reinstated with full back pay and no reprimand whatsoever.

We've had problems with cops here in Indianapolis lately too. One cop got off on a drunk driving charge because someone "accidentally invalidated" his breathalyzer and blood tests. Another was just exoneration by the merit board after beating the shit out of a 15 year old. Are cops everywhere getting worse or are we just getting more reporting on it lately?

Oakland is great, I loved living there.

Portland has an insanely corrupt government. It is fucking ridiculous how much graft there is.

What part of Oakland you moving to, Net? I lived in Millsmont, right up the hill from Eastmont Mall.

Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2010, 07:53:36 PM
What part of Oakland you moving to, Net? I lived in Millsmont, right up the hill from Eastmont Mall.

My GF knows some people who will rent to us way below market price in the Montclair neighborhood while they travel for a year.

After that the plan is to stay in Oakland somewhere affordable until she finishes graduate school.

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 07, 2010, 07:30:18 PM
We've had problems with cops here in Indianapolis lately too. One cop got off on a drunk driving charge because someone "accidentally invalidated" his breathalyzer and blood tests. Another was just exoneration by the merit board after beating the shit out of a 15 year old. Are cops everywhere getting worse or are we just getting more reporting on it lately?

I'm guessing the latter.

Quote from: First City Hustle on November 07, 2010, 01:18:42 PM
really? because PDX cops keep killing people for no good reason at all and nobody (including Sam Adams) ever does much of shit about it.

Fucking Humphries is still on the street carrying a gun after the Chasse incident. It took 4 incidents that were essentially murder AND a switch in who has Police Commissioner powers before Sizer got fired for having no control at all over her department, and when they tried to pull the cops involved in the Chasse incident off of the street and suspend or fire them, not only did the good citizens of PDX utter a collective yawn, but 600 or so police employees showed up yelling and protesting for the murderous officers to be fully reinstated with full back pay and no reprimand whatsoever.

REFERRING TO

          pretty regular protest activity here in pdx. albiet, folks here maybe don't resort to smashing in bystander/ innocent people's property when starting shit on fire in the street just isn't enough, like the cro-magnon dipshits in california.



         

the point of a good riot is not to express dissatisfaction with the situation. it is to stop society from working until the situation is resolved to your satisfaction.

Quote from: First City Hustle on November 07, 2010, 01:18:42 PM
really? because PDX cops keep killing people for no good reason at all and nobody (including Sam Adams) ever does much of shit about it.

Fucking Humphries is still on the street carrying a gun after the Chasse incident. It took 4 incidents that were essentially murder AND a switch in who has Police Commissioner powers before Sizer got fired for having no control at all over her department, and when they tried to pull the cops involved in the Chasse incident off of the street and suspend or fire them, not only did the good citizens of PDX utter a collective yawn, but 600 or so police employees showed up yelling and protesting for the murderous officers to be fully reinstated with full back pay and no reprimand whatsoever.

ALSO

        all of that shit is covered (which is why you know about it) in the papers here daily and weekly. the cops are the local military, what are you gonna do about it?

PDX

         we got a gay mayor. he's in charge of all this.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:24:06 AM
the point of a good riot is not to express dissatisfaction with the situation. it is to stop society from working until the situation is resolved to your satisfaction.

WHICH

          is inevitably the result of mindlessly overspilling one's rage onto innocent people

okay, not to be contrarian here, and yeah i think there are limits, but really? who is innocent? the people who just want everybody to shut up so they can open for business like nothing is wrong? the people who just want some peace and quiet so they can listen to indie rock and NPR and pretend that voting Makes A Difference™? these people are not innocent, they are complicit in a malfunctioning society. they are the bullhorns of silence. it is precisely these people whose attention must be forcibly seized, because they are more concerned about everybody just pretending like nothing is wrong, than with fixing things so they're actually a little less wrong.

of course, pulling a guy out of a truck and beating him half to death during a riot is crossing the line. but it's not the same as looting a store or smashing some windows or burning up a car. that's all just stuff. if that's what it takes to get people's attention, then that's what it takes. in the long run it will probably take a lot more than that, or maybe it's impossible in the long run. but my argument is that a riot is a riot and they are violent and ugly. they suck. maybe the cop shouldn't have gotten a measly 2 years for murder, though. maybe if the system worked right, it wouldn't have to worry about riots.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
okay, not to be contrarian here, and yeah i think there are limits, but really? who is innocent? the people who just want everybody to shut up so they can open for business like nothing is wrong? the people who just want some peace and quiet so they can listen to indie rock and NPR and pretend that voting Makes A Difference™? these people are not innocent, they are complicit in a malfunctioning society. they are the bullhorns of silence. it is precisely these people whose attention must be forcibly seized, because they are more concerned about everybody just pretending like nothing is wrong, than with fixing things so they're actually a little less wrong.

of course, pulling a guy out of a truck and beating him half to death during a riot is crossing the line. but it's not the same as looting a store or smashing some windows or burning up a car. that's all just stuff. if that's what it takes to get people's attention, then that's what it takes. in the long run it will probably take a lot more than that, or maybe it's impossible in the long run. but my argument is that a riot is a riot and they are violent and ugly. they suck. maybe the cop shouldn't have gotten a measly 2 years for murder, though. maybe if the system worked right, it wouldn't have to worry about riots.

YOU

          ought'ta read what you just wrote.

PEOPLE

          people, not the f*ing morons making collateral damage of other's lives and livelihood, are just trying to survive. shop owners, home owners, families, - these people don't have time to sit around listening to indie rock. these people are not complicit with the motives of individuals within the police department.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:24:06 AM
the point of a good riot is not to express dissatisfaction with the situation. it is to stop society from working until the situation is resolved to your satisfaction.

Throwing blood is often more effective then throwing rocks at windows :fnord:

Quote from: E.O.T. on November 08, 2010, 06:45:56 AM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
okay, not to be contrarian here, and yeah i think there are limits, but really? who is innocent? the people who just want everybody to shut up so they can open for business like nothing is wrong? the people who just want some peace and quiet so they can listen to indie rock and NPR and pretend that voting Makes A Difference™? these people are not innocent, they are complicit in a malfunctioning society. they are the bullhorns of silence. it is precisely these people whose attention must be forcibly seized, because they are more concerned about everybody just pretending like nothing is wrong, than with fixing things so they're actually a little less wrong.

of course, pulling a guy out of a truck and beating him half to death during a riot is crossing the line. but it's not the same as looting a store or smashing some windows or burning up a car. that's all just stuff. if that's what it takes to get people's attention, then that's what it takes. in the long run it will probably take a lot more than that, or maybe it's impossible in the long run. but my argument is that a riot is a riot and they are violent and ugly. they suck. maybe the cop shouldn't have gotten a measly 2 years for murder, though. maybe if the system worked right, it wouldn't have to worry about riots.

YOU

          ought'ta read what you just wrote.

PEOPLE

          people, not the f*ing morons making collateral damage of other's lives and livelihood, are just trying to survive. shop owners, home owners, families, - these people don't have time to sit around listening to indie rock. these people are not complicit with the motives of individuals within the police department.

NO ONE'S

          life ended from the riots.

"BITCH-ASS NIGGER"

          was one of the last things Oscar Grant heard before he was shot to death by the white cop who will be free within a year.

HOWEVER,

         I'm so profoundly sorry your sense of decency was insulted by all that unspeakable property damage.

Quote from: E.O.T. on November 08, 2010, 06:45:56 AM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
okay, not to be contrarian here, and yeah i think there are limits, but really? who is innocent? the people who just want everybody to shut up so they can open for business like nothing is wrong? the people who just want some peace and quiet so they can listen to indie rock and NPR and pretend that voting Makes A Difference™? these people are not innocent, they are complicit in a malfunctioning society. they are the bullhorns of silence. it is precisely these people whose attention must be forcibly seized, because they are more concerned about everybody just pretending like nothing is wrong, than with fixing things so they're actually a little less wrong.

of course, pulling a guy out of a truck and beating him half to death during a riot is crossing the line. but it's not the same as looting a store or smashing some windows or burning up a car. that's all just stuff. if that's what it takes to get people's attention, then that's what it takes. in the long run it will probably take a lot more than that, or maybe it's impossible in the long run. but my argument is that a riot is a riot and they are violent and ugly. they suck. maybe the cop shouldn't have gotten a measly 2 years for murder, though. maybe if the system worked right, it wouldn't have to worry about riots.

YOU

         ought'ta read what you just wrote.

PEOPLE

         people, not the f*ing morons making collateral damage of other's lives and livelihood, are just trying to survive. shop owners, home owners, families, - these people don't have time to sit around listening to indie rock. these people are not complicit with the motives of individuals within the police department.

Everyone who isn't doing something to stop the Machine from rolling over the top of other people is complicit. Whether they know it or not, whether they want to think about it or not, they are. Is it going too far to break windows in a shop owned by somebody who isn't even remotely involved in the situation? Maybe. But it's also going too far to not give a fuck when the Machine crushes the powerless and exonerates the guilty. Every kowtowing, ass-kissing, "just minding my own business," oblivious, complacent motherfucker in Oakland and everywhere else is partly to blame for the actions of their community government.

Sometimes, the consequences of not doing anything to improve society include becoming the victim of a society that breaks your shit.

If the guy had gotten away without going to trial I'd agree.  If the government refused to prosecute criminals then the mob becomes the only real alternative.  But the guy went to trial, got a slick lawyer, and got off easy.  Nobody ever said the justice system was perfect, but as long as its actually being used its better than the alternative.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 04:05:25 PM

Quote from: E.O.T. on November 08, 2010, 06:45:56 AM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
okay, not to be contrarian here, and yeah i think there are limits, but really? who is innocent? the people who just want everybody to shut up so they can open for business like nothing is wrong? the people who just want some peace and quiet so they can listen to indie rock and NPR and pretend that voting Makes A Difference™? these people are not innocent, they are complicit in a malfunctioning society. they are the bullhorns of silence. it is precisely these people whose attention must be forcibly seized, because they are more concerned about everybody just pretending like nothing is wrong, than with fixing things so they're actually a little less wrong.

of course, pulling a guy out of a truck and beating him half to death during a riot is crossing the line. but it's not the same as looting a store or smashing some windows or burning up a car. that's all just stuff. if that's what it takes to get people's attention, then that's what it takes. in the long run it will probably take a lot more than that, or maybe it's impossible in the long run. but my argument is that a riot is a riot and they are violent and ugly. they suck. maybe the cop shouldn't have gotten a measly 2 years for murder, though. maybe if the system worked right, it wouldn't have to worry about riots.

YOU

         ought'ta read what you just wrote.

PEOPLE

         people, not the f*ing morons making collateral damage of other's lives and livelihood, are just trying to survive. shop owners, home owners, families, - these people don't have time to sit around listening to indie rock. these people are not complicit with the motives of individuals within the police department.

Everyone who isn't doing something to stop the Machine from rolling over the top of other people is complicit. Whether they know it or not, whether they want to think about it or not, they are. Is it going too far to break windows in a shop owned by somebody who isn't even remotely involved in the situation? Maybe. But it's also going too far to not give a fuck when the Machine crushes the powerless and exonerates the guilty. Every kowtowing, ass-kissing, "just minding my own business," oblivious, complacent motherfucker in Oakland and everywhere else is partly to blame for the actions of their community government.

Sometimes, the consequences of not doing anything to improve society include becoming the victim of a society that breaks your shit.

So are you saying that everyone who owns private property is doing nothing to improve society and is therefore complicit, deserving to have their shit smashed up?

Quote from: Net on November 08, 2010, 03:35:48 AM

Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2010, 07:53:36 PM
What part of Oakland you moving to, Net? I lived in Millsmont, right up the hill from Eastmont Mall.

My GF knows some people who will rent to us way below market price in the Montclair neighborhood while they travel for a year.

After that the plan is to stay in Oakland somewhere affordable until she finishes graduate school.

Oh, Montclair! That's pretty fucking nice. Not the kind of "Oakland" I'm familiar with, at all. Enjoy it!

Someone totally doesn't get the concept of "The Machine" ITT.

Also, yeah, fucking up people's property can be devastating, and to the wrong folks. It's like protesting Bank of America by burning down your neighbor's house. Doesn't hurt BOA, but it does hurt your neighbor.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 04:05:25 PM

Quote from: E.O.T. on November 08, 2010, 06:45:56 AM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
okay, not to be contrarian here, and yeah i think there are limits, but really? who is innocent? the people who just want everybody to shut up so they can open for business like nothing is wrong? the people who just want some peace and quiet so they can listen to indie rock and NPR and pretend that voting Makes A Difference™? these people are not innocent, they are complicit in a malfunctioning society. they are the bullhorns of silence. it is precisely these people whose attention must be forcibly seized, because they are more concerned about everybody just pretending like nothing is wrong, than with fixing things so they're actually a little less wrong.

of course, pulling a guy out of a truck and beating him half to death during a riot is crossing the line. but it's not the same as looting a store or smashing some windows or burning up a car. that's all just stuff. if that's what it takes to get people's attention, then that's what it takes. in the long run it will probably take a lot more than that, or maybe it's impossible in the long run. but my argument is that a riot is a riot and they are violent and ugly. they suck. maybe the cop shouldn't have gotten a measly 2 years for murder, though. maybe if the system worked right, it wouldn't have to worry about riots.

YOU

         ought'ta read what you just wrote.

PEOPLE

         people, not the f*ing morons making collateral damage of other's lives and livelihood, are just trying to survive. shop owners, home owners, families, - these people don't have time to sit around listening to indie rock. these people are not complicit with the motives of individuals within the police department.

Everyone who isn't doing something to stop the Machine from rolling over the top of other people is complicit. Whether they know it or not, whether they want to think about it or not, they are. Is it going too far to break windows in a shop owned by somebody who isn't even remotely involved in the situation? Maybe. But it's also going too far to not give a fuck when the Machine crushes the powerless and exonerates the guilty. Every kowtowing, ass-kissing, "just minding my own business," oblivious, complacent motherfucker in Oakland and everywhere else is partly to blame for the actions of their community government.

Sometimes, the consequences of not doing anything to improve society include becoming the victim of a society that breaks your shit.

SDS/Yippies, ITT.  "By any means necessary."

That's how monsters are born! :banana:

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
okay, not to be contrarian here, and yeah i think there are limits, but really? who is innocent?

"The only innocents are those not born."
- Joe "Anything for a Laugh" Stalin

So tell me, Vex, should all guilty people be punished, no matter what the results are?

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:24:06 AM
the point of a good riot is not to express dissatisfaction with the situation. it is to stop society from working until the situation is resolved to your satisfaction.

And beatings.  Can't have a good riot without a little mob justice on someone who looks insufficiently on your side.

The part Vexation doesn't seem to understand is that the riot doesn't stop the Machine. The riot is the Machine.

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 05:33:11 PM
Someone totally doesn't get the concept of "The Machine" ITT.

Also, yeah, fucking up people's property can be devastating, and to the wrong folks. It's like protesting Bank of America by burning down your neighbor's house. Doesn't hurt BOA, but it does hurt your neighbor.

Using overt violence against The Machine™ is something I've been preaching against for years, not out of any sort of moral sense, but because it doesn't fucking work.

You're basically fighting on its terms, which is a good way to lose.  And, as the man said, what do you get when you burn down the ghetto?  A burned down ghetto.  

You've hurt people on the ground, and given the people in power yet another excuse to drop the hammer.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 04:05:25 PM

Quote from: E.O.T. on November 08, 2010, 06:45:56 AM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
okay, not to be contrarian here, and yeah i think there are limits, but really? who is innocent? the people who just want everybody to shut up so they can open for business like nothing is wrong? the people who just want some peace and quiet so they can listen to indie rock and NPR and pretend that voting Makes A Difference™? these people are not innocent, they are complicit in a malfunctioning society. they are the bullhorns of silence. it is precisely these people whose attention must be forcibly seized, because they are more concerned about everybody just pretending like nothing is wrong, than with fixing things so they're actually a little less wrong.

of course, pulling a guy out of a truck and beating him half to death during a riot is crossing the line. but it's not the same as looting a store or smashing some windows or burning up a car. that's all just stuff. if that's what it takes to get people's attention, then that's what it takes. in the long run it will probably take a lot more than that, or maybe it's impossible in the long run. but my argument is that a riot is a riot and they are violent and ugly. they suck. maybe the cop shouldn't have gotten a measly 2 years for murder, though. maybe if the system worked right, it wouldn't have to worry about riots.

YOU

         ought'ta read what you just wrote.

PEOPLE

         people, not the f*ing morons making collateral damage of other's lives and livelihood, are just trying to survive. shop owners, home owners, families, - these people don't have time to sit around listening to indie rock. these people are not complicit with the motives of individuals within the police department.

Everyone who isn't doing something to stop the Machine from rolling over the top of other people is complicit. Whether they know it or not, whether they want to think about it or not, they are. Is it going too far to break windows in a shop owned by somebody who isn't even remotely involved in the situation? Maybe. But it's also going too far to not give a fuck when the Machine crushes the powerless and exonerates the guilty. Every kowtowing, ass-kissing, "just minding my own business," oblivious, complacent motherfucker in Oakland and everywhere else is partly to blame for the actions of their community government.

Sometimes, the consequences of not doing anything to improve society include becoming the victim of a society that breaks your shit.

Should I put a little note on all my shit that says: "Dismantling the dominant paradigm here, feeding my kids, brb." Would that stop them from turning my car upside down in a mob rush? Regardless of one's level of political activity, I have the right to not have my shit, my essential to daily life shit, set on fire.

I guess I could always call the cops....

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 05:46:38 PM
The part Vexation doesn't seem to understand is that the riot doesn't stop the Machine. The riot is the Machine.

No, the riot is composed of parts of the machine that are half-awake.  But even in acting against The Machine™ as a whole, they make it stronger.

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2010, 05:48:57 PM
Regardless of one's level of political activity, I have the right to not have my shit, my essential to daily life shit, set on fire.

I am certain Vex will be along shortly to explain why a mob of rioters burning and looting your shit is different than, say, eminent domain.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 04:05:25 PM
Sometimes, the consequences of not doing anything to improve society include becoming the victim of a society that breaks your shit.

This should probably be newsfeed.  Because, you know, a mindless mob of yahoos totally knows who is working with them, who is working against them, and who isn't doing anything.

:lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 05:49:05 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 05:46:38 PM
The part Vexation doesn't seem to understand is that the riot doesn't stop the Machine. The riot is the Machine.

No, the riot is composed of parts of the machine that are half-awake.  But even in acting against The Machine™ as a whole, they make it stronger.

Awake or not, we are all still part of the Machine. We can't STOP the Machine. We can't DESTROY the Machine. But if enough of the Machine is awake and aware, we can CHANGE the Machine.

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 05:57:27 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 05:49:05 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 05:46:38 PM
The part Vexation doesn't seem to understand is that the riot doesn't stop the Machine. The riot is the Machine.

No, the riot is composed of parts of the machine that are half-awake.  But even in acting against The Machine™ as a whole, they make it stronger.

Awake or not, we are all still part of the Machine. We can't STOP the Machine. We can't DESTROY the Machine. But if enough of the Machine is awake and aware, we can CHANGE the Machine.

But that's not as fun as, say, implying that some schmoe making $24K/year SHOULD have his stuff burned because he's trying to get along the best way he knows how, instead of saying "FUCK MY JOB, THE KIDS CAN FIND THEIR OWN FOOD, FUCK THE RENT, I'M GONNA GO JOIN AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND PROTEST MY LITTLE HEAD OFF!"

Your way doesn't let a person feel that warm glow of self-righteous extremism.

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 05:46:38 PM
The part Vexation doesn't seem to understand is that the riot doesn't stop the Machine. The riot is the Machine.

You two and maybe EOT mind if I snip comments from this thread for my :mittens:

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.

Quote from: Subetai on November 08, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
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?

Quote from: Pēleus on November 08, 2010, 06:00:15 PM

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 05:46:38 PM
The part Vexation doesn't seem to understand is that the riot doesn't stop the Machine. The riot is the Machine.

You two and maybe EOT mind if I snip comments from this thread for my :mittens:

I'm fine with it.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 06:01:34 PM

Quote from: Subetai on November 08, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
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?

It's a GREAT way to make the common people hate protesters and everything they associate themselves with. So, yeah, it definitely works to the benefit of those in power.

You can't tell the protesters that, though. They need their sense of Glory™.

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 06:09:34 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 06:01:34 PM

Quote from: Subetai on November 08, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
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?

It's a GREAT way to make the common people hate protesters and everything they associate themselves with. So, yeah, it definitely works to the benefit of those in power.

You can't tell the protesters that, though. They need their sense of Glory™.

End results:

1.  The message of the rioters is utterly invalidated.

2.  A few people lose everything they own, for no good reason.

3.  A certain type of person thinks of themselves as "hardened revolutionaries".

4.  Things go on as before, but now there's a number of people that hate everything the rioters stand for, because the rioters burned everything they own.

Ergo

5.  The Machine™ wins again.

Riots suck. Economic chokeholds are good, like Cain said. And so are protests that interrupt daily life and/or cause problems (in the right way) for the big cogs in the Machine. The Montgomery bus protests are a good example of that - Montgomery Cogs were confused as fuck and helplessly angry and it caused them problems. Sit-ins fought segregation in a way that made difficult for the restaurant owners doing it.

People got the idea somewhere along the way that marches are It. That that's what you do. You take time off work and you go down to wherever it is, and you walk. That doesn't work anymore because the novelty value is gone. You have disrupt the Machine in the right way to get what you want. Albert (http://books.google.com/books?id=s8gJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=albert+parsons+life+of&hl=en&ei=LkbYTK6XO4TQsAOcqYGNCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) and Lucy Parsons (http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/about_lucyparsons.html) lead 40,000-80,000 workers on a march in Chicago in 1866 (iirc) and those people walked off the job. That hurt Chicago Cogs big time, frustrated the mayor, etc. It was a huge risk for the marchers in a time when there was enough unskilled immigrants like them to make them replaceable and there was a massive recession, too.

The rioters might have done better if they had swarmed around that cop's police station and made it impossible to get in or out of. Not using violence, but just by being there and blocking the way.

Quote from: Hover Cat on November 08, 2010, 07:14:59 PM
Riots suck. Economic chokeholds are good, like Cain said. And so are protests that interrupt daily life and/or cause problems (in the right way) for the big cogs in the Machine. The Montgomery bus protests are a good example of that - Montgomery Cogs were confused as fuck and helplessly angry and it caused them problems. Sit-ins fought segregation in a way that made difficult for the restaurant owners doing it.

People got the idea somewhere along the way that marches are It. That that's what you do. You take time off work and you go down to wherever it is, and you walk. That doesn't work anymore because the novelty value is gone. You have disrupt the Machine in the right way to get what you want. Albert (http://books.google.com/books?id=s8gJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=albert+parsons+life+of&hl=en&ei=LkbYTK6XO4TQsAOcqYGNCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) and Lucy Parsons (http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/about_lucyparsons.html) lead 40,000-80,000 workers on a march in Chicago in 1866 (iirc) and those people walked off the job. That hurt Chicago Cogs big time, frustrated the mayor, etc. It was a huge risk for the marchers in a time when there was enough unskilled immigrants like them to make them replaceable and there was a massive recession, too.

The rioters might have done better if they had swarmed around that cop's police station and made it impossible to get in or out of. Not using violence, but just by being there and blocking the way.

Yes.

There are effective ways to protest. Milling around shouting and smashing stuff is not one of them.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=27295.0

yeah this is the post where i say mindless mob violence is ok.

It's not okay, it's a product of a defective society.

The mob does not care what it fucks up. It is terrible, and it shouldn't happen. BUT it does happen, not because it is OK, but because allowing your government to be corrupt, ineffective, and generally terrible CAUSES it to happen.

As a function of society, riots serve a purpose. It's like your immune system going fucking crazy and killing everything it sees to eliminate particularly nasty infection. LEFT UNCHECKED it might develop into Teh AIDS, but if the government responds appropriately, it fades away and things go back to tolerable.

I am not arguing in favor of the goons on the street causing the property damage, I am arguing in favor of "The Riot" as a social mechanism that occurs in order to eliminate something people are fucking pissed off about but the government refuses to address. There's probably a purely subjective line between that kind of riot and just general lawlessness; but in the end if the riot produces results acceptable to most people then it was successful and it goes away.

A riot is a communal act arising from communal dysfunction. In order to prevent such things from happening it is a responsibility of every person in the community to work together and maintain a sane, balanced, and civilized form of government that is capable of relieving and avoiding such communal dysfunction in the first place. If the citizens fail in that responsibility and a riot springs up, then that is just what happens when not enough people give enough of a collective fuck about the community.

Really?  Because the way you wrote it implied (stated) that the victims of the riot were guilty.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 07:56:35 PM
Really?  Because the way you wrote it implied (stated) that the victims of the riot were guilty.

Clumsy language, which I'm guilty of more often than not.

By "guilty" I meant they failed in their responsibility to form a cohesive, competent community capable of dealing with the stressors that lead to riots. I use the word "guilty" clumsily because I don't believe in "good/evil" dualism but was raised with that kind of vocabulary.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 07:59:59 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 07:56:35 PM
Really?  Because the way you wrote it implied (stated) that the victims of the riot were guilty.

Clumsy language, which I'm guilty of more often than not.

By "guilty" I meant they failed in their responsibility to form a cohesive, competent community capable of dealing with the stressors that lead to riots. I use the word "guilty" clumsily because I don't believe in "good/evil" dualism but was raised with that kind of vocabulary.

Sooo...Let me see if I'm reading you right.  Joe Sixpack is responsible for not spending every waking hour trying to "build a community"  (while he's spending every waking moment trying to make the rent, etc), and is thus responsible when some dull-witted rioter burns his house down?

I can't possibly be reading that right.

There IS another possibility, though.  Maybe, just MAYBE, we could hold responsible the miserable, useless fucker that actually torched his house?

You know, if this "society" you talk about were some mindless, lifeless entity, I might go along with your reasoning.

But it's not.  It's people, and riots hurt the very opposite of the people it intends to hurt, and benefits those in power. 

It's fine to be aloof when making grand statements, but the "innocent masses" get fucked in a riot.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 07:54:18 PM
yeah this is the post where i say mindless mob violence is ok.

It's not okay, it's a product of a defective society.

The mob does not care what it fucks up. It is terrible, and it shouldn't happen. BUT it does happen, not because it is OK, but because allowing your government to be corrupt, ineffective, and generally terrible CAUSES it to happen.

As a function of society, riots serve a purpose. It's like your immune system going fucking crazy and killing everything it sees to eliminate particularly nasty infection. LEFT UNCHECKED it might develop into Teh AIDS, but if the government responds appropriately, it fades away and things go back to tolerable.

I am not arguing in favor of the goons on the street causing the property damage, I am arguing in favor of "The Riot" as a social mechanism that occurs in order to eliminate something people are fucking pissed off about but the government refuses to address. There's probably a purely subjective line between that kind of riot and just general lawlessness; but in the end if the riot produces results acceptable to most people then it was successful and it goes away.

A riot is a communal act arising from communal dysfunction. In order to prevent such things from happening it is a responsibility of every person in the community to work together and maintain a sane, balanced, and civilized form of government that is capable of relieving and avoiding such communal dysfunction in the first place. If the citizens fail in that responsibility and a riot springs up, then that is just what happens when not enough people give enough of a collective fuck about the community.

I think I get what you're talking about, but I still think you're wrong. Riots are a symptom of the disease, but not a cure. They might lead to protests, which are the people's immune system imo, to borrow your metaphor.

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

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. I'm not saying anybody deserves to get their house burned down by a mob during a riot. Nobody deserves having their shop vandalized and looted, or being pulled out of their truck and beaten, or shot to death by the cops, or any other unpleasant thing. But what you deserve and what you get are often worlds apart - especially when you're too busy minding your "own business" and keeping your head down to notice that your city is falling to pieces and the people around you are getting more pissed off by the second.

When things blow up, the explosion doesn't make any distinction between the innocent and the guilty. That's why it's everyone's job to keep the bombs defused to begin with. Is it Joe's fault that a judge in some case he has nothing to do with is corrupt and lets a guilty person go free? No. Is it Joe's fault that he fits the opposite demographic of the average rioter? No. But Joe's only fault wasn't just being in the wrong place at the wrong time -- but also being in the right place at the right time and doing nothing while he was there.

Community implies responsibility. If no man is an island, then you can't very well pretend there's a moat around you and nothing has any business affecting you unless you specifically set it in motion. If you want to guarantee that bad shit doesn't happen in your community, you're not going to get there by pretending everything was fine until it wasn't one day.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 08, 2010, 08:20:53 PM
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.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:21:22 PM
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?

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:22:31 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 08, 2010, 08:20:53 PM
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?

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:21:22 PM
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. I'm not saying anybody deserves to get their house burned down by a mob during a riot. Nobody deserves having their shop vandalized and looted, or being pulled out of their truck and beaten, or shot to death by the cops, or any other unpleasant thing. But what you deserve and what you get are often worlds apart - especially when you're too busy minding your "own business" and keeping your head down to notice that your city is falling to pieces and the people around you are getting more pissed off by the second.

When things blow up, the explosion doesn't make any distinction between the innocent and the guilty. That's why it's everyone's job to keep the bombs defused to begin with. Is it Joe's fault that a judge in some case he has nothing to do with is corrupt and lets a guilty person go free? No. Is it Joe's fault that he fits the opposite demographic of the average rioter? No. But Joe's only fault wasn't just being in the wrong place at the wrong time -- but also being in the right place at the right time and doing nothing while he was there.

Community implies responsibility. If no man is an island, then you can't very well pretend there's a moat around you and nothing has any business affecting you unless you specifically set it in motion. If you want to guarantee that bad shit doesn't happen in your community, you're not going to get there by pretending everything was fine until it wasn't one day.

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

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:22:31 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 08, 2010, 08:20:53 PM
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.

No, if damage, injury and death are acceptable results of a "successful riot" (which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard it), then I think the word you are looking for from history is war.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 08:22:40 PM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:21:22 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 08:23:13 PM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:22:31 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 08, 2010, 08:20:53 PM
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.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 08, 2010, 08:23:17 PM
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?

Obviously I'm outbrained here, though, so I'll go just go back to talking about boobs in IRC.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:34:21 PM
So we can talk about Big Ideas here, so long as it has nothing to do with real life?

You do realize that you're essentially making the "acceptable losses" argument ITT, which is just down the road for "the ends justifies the means", right?


It's not the big ideas, or that it refers to real life actions, it's the extreme disassociation between the two that is bothering me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:54:00 PM
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.

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

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 06:01:34 PM

Quote from: Subetai on November 08, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
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?

Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 08, 2010, 09:05:15 PM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:54:00 PM
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.

QuoteYeah 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.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:34:21 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 08:22:40 PM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:21:22 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 08:23:13 PM

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 08:22:31 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 08, 2010, 08:20:53 PM
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.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on November 08, 2010, 08:23:17 PM
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.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 08, 2010, 09:07:28 PM
If riots correlated with a dysfunctional society, Pheonix would have burned to the ground years ago.

THIS.

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on November 08, 2010, 09:36:05 PM
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.

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on November 08, 2010, 09:36:05 PM

QuoteYeah 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.

Quote from: Net on November 08, 2010, 09:16:00 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 06:01:34 PM

Quote from: Subetai on November 08, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
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.

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?

Quote
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.

Hmm. Good point. Shouldn't point fingers when I haven't contributed to thread myself. My apologies, Vex.

Okay then. I can kind of see what Vex was meaning, at least in regards to the "riots are a symptom of a broken society thing", but I disagree in that riots can be a force for social change, at least not reliably. Sure, a riot could conceivably draw attention to social issues that led to the riot, but still that would be more of an accidental result. I also disagree when he said that someone whose home was burnt down during a riot is their fault, because they weren't working to improve society. A riot doesn't care about who did what, it just destroys whatever it happens to direct its anger at. And even then, most people don't deserve to have bad shit happen to them just because they're not trying to improve society. That's like saying a person should have their house burned down because they don't go to church.

So, there is my two cents thrown in. Once again Vex, I'm sorry. I think I made a valid point, but I shouldn't have thrown it out given that I hadn't contributed either.

Individually the victims of a riot are not responsible for the consequences of a riot. The loss of property (and life) suffered at the hands of a rampaging mob is devastating to those who suffer it. Individually they are innocent, but the society as a whole is not innocent. The destruction caused by a riot is a symptom of whatever disease the riot itself is a symptom of. And, since society is not a conscious entity by itself but depends on conscious minds within it to survive and flourish, those conscious minds have a responsibility to see to it that their society is less likely to produce riots and civil unrest.

So, while the individual is innocent and should not be targeted by a riot, the individual also had the responsibility to help alleviate whatever social ills led to the riot in the first place. It isn't a matter of saying "well you did nothing to prevent it, therefore it's your fault;" it's more like saying "if you had all done something sooner, this wouldn't have happened." So a riot should be a warning sign that people need to wake up and start participating in their community - it's a learning experience - not simply a crime committed by a mob of criminals, but a consequence of failing to act for the greater good of your community.

Okay, just to make sure I'm getting what you're saying. You're saying that riots are more wake up calls for people to get involved, rather than punishment for not being involved. It's something to make them realize that things have gone bad.

Am I getting that right?

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 09:55:30 PM
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.

Who the fuck said that?

Quote from: vexati0n on November 08, 2010, 09:55:30 PM
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.

At which point did anyone here say "burn down the houses of Joe Sixpack"?


You know what, Vex?  Fuck you.  Fuck you for misrepresenting what I - and many other people here - have said, and fuck you and your false dilemma fallacies.  I'm not even going to explain that there's a third (and a fourth and a fifth) option, that doesn't involve either giving in or burning down the homes of average people, because you already know that...But you've argued yourself into a corner, and now it's strawman time.

I could get that shit at freerepublic.com.  I expect better from bipeds.

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on November 08, 2010, 10:29:58 PM
Okay, just to make sure I'm getting what you're saying. You're saying that riots are more wake up calls for people to get involved, rather than punishment for not being involved. It's something to make them realize that things have gone bad.

Am I getting that right?

I really hope not.  Because it won't work, if it did, drive-by shootings would be a thing of the past.  Church burnings, never again.  Gay bashings never heard about again.  People don't get involved if it does not affect them directly.  You don't hit them where they live, in their pocket, something along those lines, they won't give a shit.

I cannot find a reason to condone using violence to stop violence.  :sad:

http://youtu.be/N-LB94Kwlws

QuoteI really hope not.  Because it won't work, if it did, drive-by shootings would be a thing of the past.  Church burnings, never again.  Gay bashings never heard about again.  People don't get involved if it does not affect them directly.  You don't hit them where they live, in their pocket, something along those lines, they won't give a shit.

I cannot find a reason to condone using violence to stop violence.

Not condoning either. Riots are bad things, that in a perfect world wouldn't happen. But, Riots happen when people are either really mad or really scared (or both) about something, which causes them to lash out. It can draw attention to social issues, the same way an oil spill can draw attention to ecological issues. Both riots and oil spills are horrible things to have happen, but people can draw some good out of them, by trying to lessen the chance of a repeat.

But that in no ways makes it a good idea to start a riot to induce social change. A riot is a sign that things are reaching the point of no return. They should be avoided at all costs.

Quote from: postapocalipstick™ on November 08, 2010, 10:11:46 PM
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?

The Machine is the whole of society. Including you, and including me. It's not an external thing that causes people to behave in a certain way, but people behave like automatons when they don't question the machine.

To address an other subject, you have no way of knowing whether the guy who gets his windows smashed or his car torched in a riot is socially/politically active or not. The Riot™ part of the Machine isn't thinking about that, it's just following the Riot™ program.

Net, when you get to Oakland you'll have to let me know whether the Your Black Muslim Bakery in Eastmont Mall is still there. That place had awesome sandwiches, and its own militia. I'd walk over to the Food4Less a couple times a week for groceries, and I always had to go into the mall for a fish sandwich. That place rocked.

I think the people in this thread that are coming down with this harsh rebuke for the rioters but made exactly zero comment on the context that provoked the riot in the first place ought to look a little deeper into the facts of the situation and reexamine what they're focusing on. Yeah, the rioters were misguided, but their fury is completely justified. Could it have been more productively focused? Obviously. But which was worse? The property damage or the killing? Because most of what I've heard in this thread is moral outrage about how shitty and inhuman the rioters were. Bullshit.

$200,000 dollars worth of property damage inspires more righteous outrage than the killing of an unarmed man by a police officer who will likely only serve another 6 months? All of that destroyed shit can be replaced. Grant is never coming back. Bay Area law enforcement now is even less likely to be held accountable for grave injustice thanks to the GOLLY I  THAWT I GRABBED MAH TAZER NOT MAH GUN precedent. It's not enough that cops generally can get out of legal trouble by claiming they THOUGHT the victim was reaching for a gun, now they can buttress their argument with more fabrications.

But yes, let's focus entirely on the misguided vandalism and completely ignore the larger context.

Quote from: Net on November 08, 2010, 10:04:12 PM

Quote from: Net on November 08, 2010, 09:16:00 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2010, 06:01:34 PM

Quote from: Subetai on November 08, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rHqrLA7aw

Quote from: postvex™ on November 08, 2010, 08:21:22 PMSure. 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. I'm not saying anybody deserves to get their house burned down by a mob during a riot. Nobody deserves having their shop vandalized and looted, or being pulled out of their truck and beaten, or shot to death by the cops, or any other unpleasant thing. But what you deserve and what you get are often worlds apart - especially when you're too busy minding your "own business" and keeping your head down to notice that your city is falling to pieces and the people around you are getting more pissed off by the second.

When things blow up, the explosion doesn't make any distinction between the innocent and the guilty. That's why it's everyone's job to keep the bombs defused to begin with. Is it Joe's fault that a judge in some case he has nothing to do with is corrupt and lets a guilty person go free? No. Is it Joe's fault that he fits the opposite demographic of the average rioter? No. But Joe's only fault wasn't just being in the wrong place at the wrong time -- but also being in the right place at the right time and doing nothing while he was there.

I think what you are trying to formulate is like how "America gets the government it deserves" that also "America gets the riots it deserves".

Which is true, in some sense. But think about the comparison for a little while, and what it means. Then read back the stuff you actually wrote, ITT.

And honestly, then take a good hard look at yourself and what it means about you having confused those two ideas. If it were just a matter of "clumsy language", I'd assume you'd err on the side of describing people as actually being the same people as yourself and your family and friends and me.

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 11:55:49 PM
Net, when you get to Oakland you'll have to let me know whether the Your Black Muslim Bakery in Eastmont Mall is still there. That place had awesome sandwiches, and its own militia. I'd walk over to the Food4Less a couple times a week for groceries, and I always had to go into the mall for a fish sandwich. That place rocked.

I will make a point of visiting Eastmont Mall for these possibly still existing sandwich makers of awesomeness.

Quote from: postvex™ on November 08, 2010, 09:55:30 PM

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on November 08, 2010, 09:36:05 PM
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.

If riots (in general) solved anything, why would the police used paid provocateurs and undercover agents to instigate them?

Could it be that, in general, riots do not solve anything and allow for protestors to be effectively sidelined on moral and rhetorical grounds, while in turn justifying the increasing militarization and brutality with which the police can operate, and the acceptable bounds of violence they can use in order to "keep the peace"?

Violence sometimes has a place in achieving your goals, but if you're not applying it strategically, you may as well shoot yourself in the foot.

Quote from: Net on November 09, 2010, 10:08:30 AM
I think the people in this thread that are coming down with this harsh rebuke for the rioters but made exactly zero comment on the context that provoked the riot in the first place ought to look a little deeper into the facts of the situation and reexamine what they're focusing on. Yeah, the rioters were misguided, but their fury is completely justified. Could it have been more productively focused? Obviously. But which was worse? The property damage or the killing? Because most of what I've heard in this thread is moral outrage about how shitty and inhuman the rioters were. Bullshit.

$200,000 dollars worth of property damage inspires more righteous outrage than the killing of an unarmed man by a police officer who will likely only serve another 6 months? All of that destroyed shit can be replaced. Grant is never coming back. Bay Area law enforcement now is even less likely to be held accountable for grave injustice thanks to the GOLLY I  THAWT I GRABBED MAH TAZER NOT MAH GUN precedent. It's not enough that cops generally can get out of legal trouble by claiming they THOUGHT the victim was reaching for a gun, now they can buttress their argument with more fabrications.

But yes, let's focus entirely on the misguided vandalism and completely ignore the larger context.

I don't think they're terrible, just counterproductive and wasteful.

Quote from: postvex™ on November 08, 2010, 10:11:46 PM
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?

That's the thing, it's not.

Riots happen, just as much as, say, the ring-tone-and-latest-celeb-iPhone-wallpaper industry happens (just to name one thing I'm pretty sure that everybody can agree upon is a waste of humanity)--and so, the Machine happens.

I don't see the problem,

cause it makes neither of them right.
but it also doesn't make it right to burn down, kill or teargas any of them.

no really.

HEY YOU STOP GIGGLING

yes I am AWARE how funny it would be to teargas the ring-tone industry but that doesn't make it right ...



but seriously, read Roger's latest rant on this (you probably already did). cause he covers it pretty nicely.

QuoteWhy, when the action crosses the (usually subjective) line from "complacence" into "negative behavior" territory, is it suddenly 100% personal responsibility?

I think it's something to do with:

Do What Thou Wilt Shalt Be The Whole Of The Law But Remember Nobody Likes An Asshole

Quote from: postvex™ on November 08, 2010, 10:23:18 PMIndividually the victims of a riot are not responsible for the consequences of a riot. The loss of property (and life) suffered at the hands of a rampaging mob is devastating to those who suffer it.

Yes, agreed.

QuoteIndividually they are innocent, but the society as a whole is not innocent.

Difficult.

Innocence and lack thereof presumes a certain system of ethics. Generally accepted ideas of right and wrong are the ones that only apply to individual humans. This is why vegetarians and tree-huggers have such a difficult time getting their beliefs about not hurting animals or plants to become universally accepted. Similarly, while it is possible to view society as a meta-organism, which is IMO an often very useful viewpoint, it is not straightforward at all to carry ethical judgement and values from individual humans to society-as-a-meta-organism.

Just as with animals, it is very important to not anthropomorphise the meta-organism, Machine, or society too much.

When you find your bread with green spots, is the mould "guilty" or "innocent"? Something is to be said for either of these options. Why is that? Because human ethical values don't work on non-human things.

Sorry I'm straying quite a bit off-topic here, but IMO these distinctions are quite important once we start saying that things such as a "mob" or "society" are or are not innocent as a whole. The fact that you need to apply the qualifier "as a whole" to this statement also provides a hint that it just doesn't quite fit.

One more example. Maybe I can show how un-human a meta-organism is, and also that it is not necessarily "smarter" or in every way "higher" than us humans. If you go to Google maps, find a medium-big city, preferably one that's not glued/stuck to another city or conglomerate but lies in a relatively sparsely populated area. That's to get a cleaner view. Now switch to satellite modus, zoom out a little bit and squint your eyes. You may disagree with me, but in my opinion, a lone city really looks a lot like that typical first speck of mould growing on bread, or a moist wall, or whatever. Same sort of concentrated irregular roundish shape, little tendrils/roads growing out of it, which is where the city/mould can expand to, or perhaps even form a new centre. Literally paving the roads hehe :)

Anyway, that illustrates what I always suspected, while the Machine may be viewed as an organism, it is by no means smarter than an individual human being. Just bigger and stronger. For some reason I always imagined it as either amoeba-like, or like a small scared aggressive wild animal. But recently I came to the conclusion it's not animal, it moves too slow, and grows too different. I think I'm getting a lot closer by imagining an aggressive, slightly intelligent mould.

QuoteThe destruction caused by a riot is a symptom of whatever disease the riot itself is a symptom of.

Yes.

QuoteAnd, since society is not a conscious entity by itself but depends on conscious minds within it to survive and flourish, those conscious minds have a responsibility to see to it that their society is less likely to produce riots and civil unrest.

Skipping a step, but okay.

QuoteSo, while the individual is innocent and should not be targeted by a riot, the individual also had the responsibility to help alleviate whatever social ills led to the riot in the first place. It isn't a matter of saying "well you did nothing to prevent it, therefore it's your fault;" it's more like saying "if you had all done something sooner, this wouldn't have happened."

Okay, because at first you said, or seemed to imply the former.

But then, if you actually meant to say "if people would had done something <to prevent police from misbehaving>, there wouldn't have been any riots", then I say you're absolutely right. Except it's of course also stating the obvious. In fact, it's so obvious that I can imagine that you'd prefer not to state it at all. Instead state something much more interesting and edgier, yet also infinitely more wrong. ...

Quote from: Net on November 09, 2010, 10:51:32 AM

Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2010, 11:55:49 PM
Net, when you get to Oakland you'll have to let me know whether the Your Black Muslim Bakery in Eastmont Mall is still there. That place had awesome sandwiches, and its own militia. I'd walk over to the Food4Less a couple times a week for groceries, and I always had to go into the mall for a fish sandwich. That place rocked.

I will make a point of visiting Eastmont Mall for these possibly still existing sandwich makers of awesomeness.

Sweet! Also, check to see if the Chick-N-Coop is still around. I used to get a huge roast turkey leg and a packet of mayo from them for $1. They fucking ROCK. There were 3...  one in Daly City and two in SF.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/06/police_taser_man_having_sex_on.php :lulz:

Spraying him with a hose didn't work?

OK so let's make sure I understand.

The neighbors call to complain about loud music but the lawn fucking was not a problem?

The man advanced on the cop? So walking towards a cop on your own lawn (albeit nekkid ok) is a crime?

I'm wondering if they can come back with tresspassing or need for a warrant, illegal search and tasering or some such.

Quote from: Niamh on November 09, 2010, 10:37:20 PM
OK so let's make sure I understand.

The neighbors call to complain about loud music but the lawn fucking was not a problem?

The man advanced on the cop? So walking towards a cop on your own lawn (albeit nekkid ok) is a crime?

I'm wondering if they can come back with tresspassing or need for a warrant, illegal search and tasering or some such.

The best he can hope for is police brutality, since being naked in public is public indecency and illegal, even if it's your own front lawn.

Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on November 09, 2010, 10:39:53 PM

Quote from: Niamh on November 09, 2010, 10:37:20 PM
OK so let's make sure I understand.

The neighbors call to complain about loud music but the lawn fucking was not a problem?

The man advanced on the cop? So walking towards a cop on your own lawn (albeit nekkid ok) is a crime?

I'm wondering if they can come back with tresspassing or need for a warrant, illegal search and tasering or some such.

The best he can hope for is police brutality, since being naked in public is public indecency and illegal, even if it's your own front lawn.

Not in Oregon. I don't know whether it is in Washington.

A few people in the comments to that article doubt whether the incident actually happened, btw. Since apparently there should be some public record. Another comment claims to know the person and that the assault charge was dropped.