I think I'm going to love Oakland

[The Wizard]

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.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

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.

[The Wizard]

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?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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?

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.

[Whatever]

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.  

[the last yatto]

http://youtu.be/N-LB94Kwlws

[The Wizard]

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.

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

[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.

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

[Triple Zero]

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.

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.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Cain]

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.