Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sean327

Nationwide Protest and civil unrest game thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jackrabbit said:

Several of the nations big city mayors think they're hurting Trump by letting their towns get destroyed.   

People had already begun leaving cities...now it will be in droves.   This will deepen income and social divides....property values will suffer...taxes increase, etc etc.

Do you just make this shit up?

Folks have been flocking to cities in droves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I never said violence never resulted in any social change. My contention is that it's use is prohibitively useful in achieving the kind of change people want. With Attica the change was pacification. Convicted criminals acted violently towards agents of the state in such a way that made the state give concessions. Both were operating under constraints, the state already had many legal responsibilities and a budget that wasn't going to expand in any great way. The prisoners were already prisoners, so what else could they do to them? The state was already constrained legally from torturing and killing them, and continuing as is wasn't feasible in the long term, so they granted concessions.

Concessions and pacification are not the same thing as equality, particularly when filtered through the eyes of those acting violently in these modern riots. But even the nonviolent people trying to help, you can't wash over the fact that there is violence everywhere. Trying to do so only does more harm. People aren't stupid, they can see what's happening with their own eyes. It's particularly unhelpful in this situation if police reform is something you want to see happen, which I think most of us do and did before the riots started. You can't change minds about how awful the police are by putting much of the populace in the situation where it becomes obvious everywhere how much society needs the police and what it looks like when they aren't around.

Our contentions are not necessarily in conflict. But mine is that reforming a system itself is not particularly useful in achieving the kind of change people want. With Attica, the change wasn't supposed to just be about pacification. But it ultimately became about pacification, because that's the primary goal and value of the prison system. Reform is not, nor is not killing or torturing prisoners despite what the law says. In a lot of ways, it's not crazy to compare the relationships between the people living in impoverished and high crime communities and the police to the relationship between inmates and guards/administrators. It overstates a lot of things, but there's a reasonable argument that the relationship is very similar. So if you think about it in that context, the violence is not an agent of change as much as it is an expression of being in that predicament. I mean, what is public policy at its heart besides an attempt to minimize violence? When large-scale violence erupts, that can be seen by definition as a failure of public policy.

I'm not really arguing with you here as much as thinking through a keyboard. I ultimately stand by my contention at the beginning of all this that violence cannot be moral or good, even if it's agreed to be justified. I might even say that violence is never justified, even if necessary for survival in the face of some existential threat. But one thing it almost always does is lead to some sort of change. Systems and bureaucracies have inertia, and violence disrupts that. I wonder to what extent the violence itself has an impact on the nature of the change from the start. Is the change worse because of the violence itself? Is violence what corrupts the change? The argument against that is that it wouldn't have happened in the first place without the violence. I dunno.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2020 at 1:57 PM, youngrebelfan40 said:

I disagree. I cite all of the thousands of illegal chokeholds that were not met by rioting, and were not prosecuted as evidence of a correlation between the two.

Now, correlation does not necassarily equal causation, but if you add the weight of history and cite the numerous political causes that were aided by rioting, it becomes very clear.

Your belief in the supposed inherent goodness and benevolent self-regulation of institutions is blinding you to the real affect direct political action has on their operation.

I was amazed to read in today's SDUT that so-called choke holds have been an approved method of getting suspects to comply with SDPD officer orders until yesterday. And they're still an approved method of doing so with SD County Sheriff's Department. That tactic hasn't been authorized by LAPD, Oakland PD and any other big city police department I'm aware of for many, many years.

I've wondered why the Hennepin County DA hasn't charged that cop with at least second degree murder. I now think the reason is probably that what that cop did was arguably "in policy" as far as Minneapolis PD is concerned. I'm sure the DA will assert its use is to be discontinued once the cops no longer face resistance but there's no way any police department should authorize cops to put pressure on a suspect's neck and throat area in order to obtain compliance with orders given. That tactic may once have been necessary but in this day and age patrol cops have - or at least should have - such "less lethal" alternatives as pepper spray and mace on their utility belt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, RSF said:

They can if they subscribe to the theory that life does not begin at conception.  Which is really the essential issue of abortion.

I believe the bible says life begins at first breath.

I'm sure Maynerd can correct me if I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

Why would some of these mayors not use the resources they have while property is getting destroyed?

You mean like police, fire and EMT's?  Like using curfews?  Just because they choose to not nuke the forest to clear the bark beetles doesn't mean they hate the forest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

Why would some of these mayors not use the resources they have while property is getting destroyed?

You have someone in mind?  Cuz mayors have zero control over things like the National Guard.  That's a state level.  They can REQUEST them (like many have), and the governor activates them (like many have).

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Our contentions are not necessarily in conflict. But mine is that reforming a system itself is not particularly useful in achieving the kind of change people want. With Attica, the change wasn't supposed to just be about pacification. But it ultimately became about pacification, because that's the primary goal and value of the prison system. Reform is not, nor is not killing or torturing prisoners despite what the law says. In a lot of ways, it's not crazy to compare the relationships between the people living in impoverished and high crime communities and the police to the relationship between inmates and guards/administrators. It overstates a lot of things, but there's a reasonable argument that the relationship is very similar. So if you think about it in that context, the violence is not an agent of change as much as it is an expression of being in that predicament. I mean, what is public policy at its heart besides an attempt to minimize violence? When large-scale violence erupts, that can be seen by definition as a failure of public policy.

I'm not really arguing with you here as much as thinking through a keyboard. I ultimately stand by my contention at the beginning of all this that violence cannot be moral or good, even if it's agreed to be justified. I might even say that violence is never justified, even if necessary for survival in the face of some existential threat. But one thing it almost always does is lead to some sort of change. Systems and bureaucracies have inertia, and violence disrupts that. I wonder to what extent the violence itself has an impact on the nature of the change from the start. Is the change worse because of the violence itself? Is violence what corrupts the change? The argument against that is that it wouldn't have happened in the first place without the violence. I dunno.

Look man, I'm never trying to be at odds with you other than to disagree where we do, and move on to something else when we don't. I know my tone is often more about debating to win on here because that's a fun exercise for me, but I'm not trying to do that. This week has been a couple of months, these couple of months have been a decade, and so if I seem adversarial I wasn't trying to be. Your problem is you ask too many good questions that deserve thoughtful 5000 word responses and you weave them all into one post at a time, making it impossible to give a good answer.

I've been thinking for days about lessening police interaction as you've suggested who knows how many pages ago. It sounds like a better solution to me and still replete with endless problems. And as we'd both be told by plenty people, it's not an answer to the real root of the problem.

Alas. That Arkansas game was pretty awesome. That's indisputable.

 

 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, renoskier said:

I believe the bible says life begins at first breath.

I'm sure Maynerd can correct me if I'm wrong.

Unfortunately, not true.  You may be referencing Genesis 2:7.  

 

“breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.”

 

the problem being Adam skipped the gestation period.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious that this protest movement has been infiltrated by all sorts of antagonists & hangers on who want to use this for nefarious reasons 

It's time the protesters organize a new strategy - Stop with the moving around & marching - Go with SIT IN type things where they gather & stay in one place away from targets for the agitators - This might limit the availability of targets for those who want to hijack the protests .........all this moving around up and down streets just gives the antagonists ability to blend in, then branch out to destroy adjacent business & buildings.

This might make it easier to identify the interlopers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Don’t most presidents have security staff that clear areas in a lot of cases when the president is entering an area? But In this case protesting takes precedence over the kings desire to walk over to the church. 

Yes, areas are secured for the POTUS.

This is typically planned well in advance, and not on top of protests that were already planned and going on, rarely is force ever used or needed on large scale to clear out crowds. One would think this type of last minute clearing requiring so much force against so many citizens would only be used for matters of great urgency. I don't believe that taking a photo holding up a Bible as a prop would warrant the actions taken, perhaps you do.

I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns, and money
The shit has hit the fan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

Why would some of these mayors not use the resources they have while property is getting destroyed?

Maybe some mayor's believe in differing ways to quell the violence and don't think that extreme escalation is the answer. 

Or maybe it is just all a ploy to hurt Trump..... Destroy their own city to make the president look bad(when he does that enough on his own). Makes sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, renoskier said:
33 minutes ago, renoskier said:
33 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Do you just make this shit up?

Folks have been flocking to cities in droves.

Out of necessity not choice. MSN had a recent poll and people overwhelmingly chose the preference to live in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

It's obvious that this protest movement has been infiltrated by all sorts of antagonists & hangers on who want to use this for nefarious reasons 

It's time the protesters organize a new strategy - Stop with the moving around & marching - Go with SIT IN type things where they gather & stay in one place away from targets for the agitators - This might limit the availability of targets for those who want to hijack the protests .........all this moving around up and down streets just gives the antagonists ability to blend in, then branch out to destroy adjacent business & buildings.

This might make it easier to identify the interlopers 

When you've lost the OG mwcboard bomb thrower, you've lost the game.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tspoke said:

Maybe some mayor's believe in differing ways to quell the violence and don't think that extreme escalation is the answer. 

Or maybe it is just all a ploy to hurt Trump..... Destroy their own city to make the president look bad(when he does that enough on his own). Makes sense. 

Maybe someone needs to tell the rioters that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tspoke said:

Maybe some mayor's believe in differing ways to quell the violence and don't think that extreme escalation is the answer. 

Or maybe it is just all a ploy to hurt Trump..... Destroy their own city to make the president look bad(when he does that enough on his own). Makes sense. 

Looters are starting to get shot by store owners.....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Don’t most presidents have security staff that clear areas in a lot of cases when the president is entering an area? But In this case protesting takes precedence over the kings desire to walk over to the church. 

If he had a real reason other than his panties were in a bunch I would have no problem.  Like if he actually went there to hear a Christian message and pray for the country.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

When you've lost the OG mwcboard bomb thrower, you've lost the game.

Just thinking strategically - the BLM protesters aren't the problem, it's the infiltrators form various factions & loonies that's the problem - Give the infiltrators less opportunity to pull their crap by stop marching around and opening spots where they can jump in & out and create havoc on everything they pass by.

The two shootings in LV were late in the protest as it was winding down and two miles apart 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...