Lol no it wasn't directed at you, just all the other bootlickers behind you.

OF COURSE YOU, YES! Asking people who are being murdered to protest peacefully shows your allegiances far more than any War & Peace length post you want to vomit up. You think rioting is about 'getting back at the man'! You don't even understand what is happening. It's to get ATTENTION AND IT WORKS.

Peaceful protest is met with violence anyways. They had snipers on rooftops in my city tonight. They shot less than lethal rounds at the news. This is so far beyond some childish concept like "sticking it to the man". This is literally life and death.

I usually agree with most of what Trevor says and he is definitely speaking from an emotional place, but...

"That's the question people don't ask the other way around. 'What good does it do to loot Target? How does it help you to loot Target?' 'Yeah, but how does it help you to not loot Target?' ... Answer that question."

Probably because it is a guaranteed way to fail at changing opposition. Instead of destroying infrastructure completely removed from the crime(s) in question because a statement needs to be made, maybe riot in a more appropriate place. People want to destroy to make noise and while I would never condone violence towards anything, would not a police station be a more applicable target? Or how about destroying Congress? Is it not the governments fault for allowing this evil to continue festering to its inevitable spiral out of control? Maybe taking out the White House is a louder statement than Frank Mcgillicuddy's local laundry mat, or even all the way up to a Target.When did I ask people who are being murdered to peacefully protest? When did I write anything to that effect? If you also think that my allegiances are with the police then you can piss right off since I made it abundantly clear that I do not. Not only is this particular MURDER by the police reprehensible but the fact that this type of hideous crime happens so often that it has led those to believe they can get away with MURDER simply by wearing a blue uniform. I was very specific to point out that the problem is not just one this situation and that it is systemic. I suppose my only 'crime' here is that I mentioned how it was not right to violently destroy something that was never responsible in anyway towards the crime(s) in question.Getting back at the man is an admittedly understated shorthand for the issue, I'll give you that but I am clearly not wrong. The people looting are clearly doing it to bring attention to something and that something is a defiance to a system that subjugates said portion of society. The man = society.And that being met with violence anyways is clearly a problem, completely unacceptable, but do not preach to me about what this is. Excuse me for making the mistake of mentioning how I disagreed with the destruction of city infrastructure despite clearly spelling out the real issue is the continual lack of accountability towards those who have been ruthlessly subjugating a portion of society so much that they have elevated their crimes to murder.

Asks how this helps the movement, ignores the entirety of US civil unrest...seems about right.

https://time.com/3951282/riot-violence- ... n-history/

That is a collection of pulls that vary the gamet on riot effectiveness, but all have one thing in common: they understand that riots are born of unheard voices and do bring greater attention to their causes. This leads to reform.

It is ignorant of the very real and very violent history of the USA, or even the world itself, to say that riots and violence and destruction do not work.

Think of the poor business owners who just wanted to make a living selling tea in Boston.

Apparently the autopsy report says that George Floyd died from "health problems combined with drugs." And the response of his family's lawyers is about half an inch away from tarring and feathering the coroner for his obvious bullshit.

The only violence I've seen anywhere in these protests across the country has been police violence. The protestors have damaged property, but violence is directed at human beings. It is impossible to do violence to property.

Office of the Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development says, “violent criminal activity means “any criminal activity that has as one of its elements the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force substantial enough to cause, or be reasonably likely to cause, serious bodily injury or property damage.” (24 CFR 5.100)
So yes, ransacking businesses that have nothing to do with Floyd’s murder, like the College Football Hall of Fame in Atlanta, is a violent crime.

Well, I disagree with that definition, because I inherently disagree with the notion that property and human beings should be treated as the same thing or with the same standards.

I'd say the black populace of the USA should begin to arm themselves. Once more, in fact. Bring the Black Panther Party back. US Police have shown themselves time and time again to be no better than state-sponsored thugs, so being on the defensive against them seems like it should become the default.

These riots and brutality upon businesses and property what it's going to take for anyone to pay attention though. We live in a rotten garbage hunk of a country that values property and commercialism over human life. That's just the facts.

Peaceful protest would just be ignored by all the fat worthless tucked-in-shirt types who just want to care about politeness and decorum. Fuck those people. Burn everything down.

Violence is the use of force against someone or something, it's not really an opinion how it's defined as the word is thousands of years old. If you don't like it, simply use different words, such as there being no assault and battery at those protests (excluding from cops.)

1) I was addressing the specific legal definition posted by Severz.

2) Also, language is up to intepretation and redefinition by its users, so no, I'll keep using it that way. Sorry if you disagree, mate.

Latin doesn't really have active users.

I think it's just important to point out that while it factually might be the right word, that doesn't mean our opinions have to condemn it, is all.

Dude she's a leftist, she doesn't bind her principles to what the state does or doesn't permit.

Do you really wanna have that splitting hairs sorta conversation in this thread, man? Cause I honestly don't see much of a point to it. We're the ones using the word now, it's up to us how it's used.

That's a whole different point actually. Why deny there's violence when so many people agree that it's either justified or at least understandable that protesters are pissed off beyond all limits and aren't going to walk on egg shells anymore about how they feel about the decades of senseless murders?

Well, in all fairness, "property and people aren't equal in the face of destruction" vs. "this destruction is justified" don't necessarily clash, so I agree with you there.

Ugh, this has happened in several threads now, recently some dude said in the US Politics thread that because I said extrajudicial killings are a crime against humanity in Sudan, they're also a crime in the United States (referring to this case) the dude said I'm saying they're the same. No, things are not equal because the same word applies to them. That destroying people and destroying property are both violence does not make them equal. That killing dozens of people without trial and millions of people without trial are both extrajudicial killings does not make them equal. That a breeze and a tornado are both wind doesn't make them equal either. That coffee and heroin are both drugs doesn't make them equal either. Where on Earth do you people get the idea that just because the same word applies to them, things are equal?

The ruling class is free to define words to their advantage, and so are we. Violence isn't an action, violence is a structure and a system. Until the masses are the law, I don't give a shit what the laws say.

I don't think I'd say what's happening is nonviolent, no. I just think it's what a lot of us have been saying in that it's justified and the system and these racist cops are getting what was coming to them. I hope it keeps going until shit changes, but I've been optimistic about these things before.

And to the gun points - I'm still fairly anti-gun personally and hate these idiot conservative talking points about them, but yeah, people talking about minorities and actual oppressed people arming themselves have some good points.

We do still have black gun rights groups here, such as the Huey P Newton Gun Club. Most recently they set up shop outside the home of one of Ahmaud Arbery’s murderers armed with long rifles and semi-automatics. The difference between something like HPN and the NRA is that the NRA is essentially a white supremacist organization masquerading as a gun rights group. They are the entity most responsible for the insane 2A “ammosexual” culture we have in this country, and historically they have always allowed states to pillage gun rights when it involves limiting the access and ability for black people and other minority groups to own guns (see: California in the 60s).

Former anti-gun people like myself have come around heavily in the last few years. It is very, very clear that the state has zero intentions of actually operating in our interests, and they will send their jackboot thug cops and soldiers to quell any uprisings the moment they rise up, with prejudice (see: the Occupy protests from a decade ago and all the police brutality that occurred during that period of time). The 2A crowd loves to blather on about how they need all their guns to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, yet the current administration is TOTALLY FINE by them because they openly hate n*ggers and k*kes and ch*nks and whatever other non-white peoples too. You must defend yourself against those kinds of racist thugs too, especially as a minority, lest you find yourself surrounded by a bunch of hillbillies somewhere with no place to run.

I wholeheartedly support the rioters going after police stations and other places that are part of the system that has been killing them for decades and light them up, but how are people justifying the destruction and looting of unrelated stores? I'm open to changing my mind on this so please tell me. The looting in particular seems indefensible. Just seem like people are being opportunistic assholes.

It's just the middle finger to this capitalist system that has long valued property over people. It's just unrestrained chaos and breaking down normal life to show exactly what these people think of the bullshit world around them. If they just left most of society alone then most people could just safely ignore it all.

Let's not forget that, as in all protests which turn violent, a lot of the violence in these protests is caused by police plants impersonating protesters. They do this every single time, without fail, they make the most noise, they find cameras to be violent in front of, and we should all be a lot better about remember this truth.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Also agreed. So weird to see metalheads, of all people, getting upset over a little street fighting.

The destruction may be viewed as a middle finger to a capitalist system by leftists, but I don't think you can just extend that to the majority of people that are rioting right now. The destruction is an expression of hopelessness and anger towards a racist police force, a racist justice system, and the complete unwillingness of the people in power to do anything about it. Now I'm not gonna argue that capitalism doesn't exacerbate those problems (private prisons yay), but I don't think "fuck capitalism" is in the minds of the majority of the people there. The looting just seems like basic opportunism done by a small portion of the rioters.

I do get your point about having to make it unignorable so maybe something finally happens, but damn. Maybe it's just my hyper-individualistic slightly libertarian side coming out that considers the destruction/stealing of other peoples property to be absolutely vile.. but I also understand that hoping for "orderly riots" is just dumb and that this is bigger than "stuff that's worth money."

Well nobody has to like what they're doing, but I just see it as an irrevocable fact, a flesh-and-blood symbol of their rage. And no, a lot of those people, or normal people in general, aren't going to hit you with a big treatise on their socialist/anti-capitalist views as reasons why they're doing it. But from the pictures I saw, it's a bunch of black people destroying this Target and it's just like, well, this is a society that has failed them and they're showing what they think of it.

It's not my place to tell them how to feel or how to react in monstrous circumstances like this. Nobody except a black person can truly express what it actually feels like. I've just read a lot and talked to a lot of people, so I can describe it the best way I can, but even this falls short.

I've never been even a little bit libertarian myself and think it's good they're saying fuck you to these fucking vulture capitalistic corporations that are sucking everything dry.

Like this piece about how Target funded surveillance and pro-police efforts: https://slate.com/business/2020/05/targ ... olice.html

I just can't see this as a thing worth defending. This is all part of the great capitalist, racist web of lies and bullshit that has kept the inequality in place for too long. People are sick of it.

And the autopsy thing where somehow the same department that killed him is saying it was health problems and potential intoxication (!!) that did it: https://abcnews.go.com/US/independent-a ... d=70954754

It's fucking infuriating. It's all part of the same system that needs to be completely destroyed. The cops, these mega-large businesses, fuck all of it.

"until shit changes" presupposes that any changes will be better by default than what exists currently. You should disabuse yourself of this notion. People who support these actions in the abstract become less willing to do so when it more directly affects their lives. When people cannot go to get food or go to their doctor because protesters and/or rioters are blocking the way, or because those places are destroyed, they will become fodder for politicians promising to restore "law and order." The longer this continues, the more people will excuse more authoritarianism, not less; more police abuse, not less; more brutalizing of minorities, not less. This was Nixon's basic political strategy in both his 1968 and 1972 runs. He essentially campaigned against protesters, civil disobedience, and rioters. It worked. Even New Deal-style dems voted for him.


Watch for it: lots of notionally progressive voters will turn out for mayors, governors, sheriffs who promise to bring back their concept of normality. They will look aside if (when) this generation's Kent State happens.

If it's happened to you several times over, Drone, then maybe you should reconsider the way you phrase certain things in general.

I dislike it when people reference my post without indicating that it is to me. Why not? It cannot be fear so why not point out exactly whom you are addressing? It would also be very helpful to stop acting like I am ignoring everything just so you can have an opening to put forth some ideas.You have clearly never owned and operated a business. I brought it up in my last post and of course everyone conveniently overlooked it but how does destroying small or large businesses NOT effect the lives of local people? You do realize the infrastructure is not limited to just streets and bridges, right?You are better than this, you also clearly KNOW better than this. First, can you produce anything that proves beyond doubt that those who are speaking against the looting care more about property and commercialism? Just because someone speaks against looting and destroying public or private property does not mean they are ignoring what has been at the root cause of all this.This is the part that made me want to respond. I agree that peaceful protests and marches have accomplished nothing except for allowing obvious racism to foster until it evolves into murder since there is a disregard for the population these monsters are supposed to be protecting. I do not care about politeness and decorum and agree that noise might need to be created. In fairness the people protesting have tried to do it the way it should be done and it has done nothing but cause them further pain.
- I do not advocate violence against anyone or anything however if we are indeed past the point of maintaining a level of good taste and propriety then the rioters are going about it the wrong way.- Their actions of looting local businesses have bad financial aftershocks that can be felt for decades to come. Who do you think PAYS to fix and repair the city? So instead of claiming that I am caring more about the brick and mortar or the fact that maybe a can of beans got burned up, realize I am speaking about these 'human lives' and how it is not going to help their cause both currently as well as in the long run.
- I do not wish to encourage acts of destruction but if we are past the point of being nice and we are the ridiculous level of Burn Everything Down, then why not take themselves away from the areas that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the crimes they are rioting over and burn down the areas that has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with them?
- Instead of torching the Target's or local businesses - which again, have done NOTHING WRONG HERE - go and burn down the White House or the Senate. Burn down every US police station. Those are the ones who the protestors are protesting here, right?

THANK YOU!!!

Did you even read the post? Things are not equal because the same word applies to them, period. Your post is dumb, Musick's posts were dumb, are you saying your posts are equal to Musick's because they're both dumb?

(Just for clarity, I'm not. Your post was dumb, Musick's posts were ultra-level D-U-M-B.)

Violence is the use of force against anything. Riots are not non-violent. There's no room for interpretation in that. And there's no reason to lie about it either, because as I've said repeatedly, cops killing minorities have been a problem in America for maybe a hundred years, and people tried voting, and people tried thoughts and prayers, and people tried writing letters to their congressman, and nothing changed, so nobody even blames them for rioting. Doesn't change the fact that violence is violence.

Back from the Providence rally. We got there at 11:30 and left at 3:45. It was pretty much entirely peaceful, with the sole disturbances being a fight between two people at the protest that got broken up quick, and some protesters almost getting hit by a car on the march to the state house. Someone also passed out from dehydration and came to very quickly. There was about 1000 people there, with the crowd building up throughout the day and slowly dissipating after the main speakers finished. This was the view from the capitol steps as the last of the marchers were arriving to the state house:



I also spoke at the rally right before we started packing up to leave. If anyone wants to watch it, here you go:

https://www.facebook.com/PrometheusBSub ... 082194303/

This afternoon the president of the United States decided to try his hand at calming tensions by asserting that "MAGA loves the black people." Separately, he tried to reassure us (via Twitter) that he can unleash "the unlimited power of the military" against protesters.

The "restore law a order" effect is why the police often are the ones instigating and escalating tense situations, and why the media focuses on those situations instead of the issues, let alone the root of the issues.

Looters in general opportunistically take advantage of protests, rather than protestors in general opportunistically looting.

The main problem is class, not race or ethnicity. You don't see the wealthy being handled like this by the police. It's not considered a male issue, even though the vast majority of abused and killed by police violence are men, a much larger percentage than any skin color. But if women were the victims to the degree that men are in this case, media and demonstrations (or at least those focused on in the media and thus discussed by most) would make it a female issue, with feminist "solutions". That would be a mistake, just like it's a mistake to make the actual case a black issue, with anti-racist "solutions". And the reason would be the same; the division of the working class into men/women or black/white/other skin colors.

Anyone interested in getting rid of the problems of capitalism, rather than merely "giving capitalism the middle finger" (though I sympathize with the sentiment behind such an action too), must focus on class. A capitalist society is always a society divided into classes, regardless of the demographics of color or anything else.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/s ... 9163389952
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp-video/mmvo84130373984
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox9.c ... firmed.amp

This may get interesting, we’ll see how this develops. It’s a relief to know that there’s a possibility that the peaceful protestors and violent rioters are not the same people, but some of you dumb fucks support this carnage....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outside_agitators

That said, the umbrella guy was fuckin' weird.

This happens with every direct action mass movement. They are always a playground for subversion, whether domestic or foreign.

@droneriot: having re-read the string of conversation with a clearer head, I've noticed the misunderstanding on my side. Apologies.