Jump to content

Archived

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

modestobulldog

Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

I don't know which of it it is. I know that any time there has been significant change in this country, especially change imposed from the grassroots level upwards, it has involved violence. 40 day work weeks, universal suffrage, the civil rights act... as tropey as it is, back to the Boston massacre and tea party. Historically it is just what happens. To discredit any violence while knowing history suggests willful malice or a hidden agenda.

"Discredit" would apply lack of giving credit to violence.  I really only credit violence for the 40 day work week.  Universal suffrage, the only real violence was done in the south to intimidate would be voters, certainly it could not be credited with the success of universal suffrage.  It was rather a symptom of it's success.  The civil rights movement was a success largely because there was a lack of violence by African Americans and allies in the movements, even if they did show force, the violence was again the symptom, the effect, of change by those wishing to fight it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

"Discredit" would apply lack of giving credit to violence.  I really only credit violence for the 40 day work week.  Universal suffrage, the only real violence was done in the south to intimidate would be voters, certainly it could not be credited with the success of universal suffrage.  It was rather a symptom of it's success.  The civil rights movement was a success largely because there was a lack of violence by African Americans and allies in the movements, even if they did show force, the violence was again the symptom, the effect, of change by those wishing to fight it.  

You may wish to revisit the civil rights movement halfman. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, happycamper said:

wasn't that trash at like 7%? I needed that pure 12%abv 24 ounce can for 2.19.

Blue maddog 20/20 was also acceptable

beer is for tasting, not drunking

God, they had to change to formula to remove the caffeine (equivalent of 3 6 oz red bulls per can) because people were dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

God, they had to change to formula to remove the caffeine (equivalent of 3 6 oz red bulls per can) because people were dying.

They had to change the formula because dipshit kids in Ellensburg mixed whiskey in four loko and then ended up at the hospital.

NO SHIT YOU R TARDS THAT'S HOW ALCOHOL WORKS. IF YOU ADD A SHOT TO A GLASS OF WINE IT IS NO LONGER WINE.

cwu punks ruined it for everybody. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

You may wish to revisit the civil rights movement halfman. 

I believe the movement and MLK started "advocating" violence after peaceful protesters started getting attacked by dogs and water cannons, not before.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

You may wish to revisit the civil rights movement halfman. 

It was the violence perpetrated by the state and renegades against the peaceful protestors that changed attitudes and opinions. When the protestors utilized violence the goodwill for the cause dried up.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C/core-reader

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

2 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

God, they had to change to formula to remove the caffeine (equivalent of 3 6 oz red bulls per can) because people were dying.

They had to do it because the public health apparatus deemed it necessary. And in most cases, the actual reason was because they "advertised" to minors, not because it was more of a health threat than slamming vodka and slamming red bulls which was already going on. 

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

2 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I believe the movement and MLK started "advocating" violence after peaceful protesters started getting attacked by dogs and water cannons, not before.

 

MLK never advocated violence. He understood the anger driving it, but he explicitly condemned it outright. That was the part of the Stanford speech selectively not included in the thread a few weeks back.

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

15 minutes ago, happycamper said:

 kids in Ellensburg mixed whiskey in four loko and then ended up at the hospital.

This too. 

Edit: Jesus H. Christ... the hangover that must result from such a thing. 

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

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

MLK never advocated violence. He understood the anger driving it, but he explicitly condemned it outright. That was the part of the Stanford speech selectively not included in the thread a few weeks back.

This is true. I believe he pointed out that riots are self-defeating to the cause. You can understand that violence is often inevitable but also be against it. 

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

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It was the violence perpetrated by the state and renegades against the peaceful protestors that changed attitudes and opinions. When the protestors utilized violence the goodwill for the cause dried up.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C/core-reader

The Vegas guy attempted to incite chaos for that exact reason.  And it is hard to say that wasn't a goal for some of those folks around the country.  Minus a few flashups and this Seattle thing, most of the violence is drastically down or non-existent.  If that continues, I think this national protest might have some legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It was the violence perpetrated by the state and renegades against the peaceful protestors that changed attitudes and opinions. When the protestors utilized violence the goodwill for the cause dried up.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C/core-reader

Pretty much.

@happycamper if you want to argue that violence is an inevitable symptom of significant change, I would agree for the most part.  However arguing that it invariably deserves credit (using the word discredit) for such change, I would say is false.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I believe the movement and MLK started "advocating" violence after peaceful protesters started getting attacked by dogs and water cannons, not before.

 

MLK is not the start and the end of the civil rights movement. Far from it. Look up the kissing case and Robert F Williams. Look up how the marches in Selma went and how they finally managed to cross the bridge. Look up how Rosa Parks was convinced to risk her life. Look up what happened with the bus boycott. 

The "Civil rights succeeded because of nonviolence actually!!!!" narrative is a whitewashing of history. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It was the violence perpetrated by the state and renegades against the peaceful protestors that changed attitudes and opinions. When the protestors utilized violence the goodwill for the cause dried up.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C/core-reader

At the same time, to what extent are the state's actions responsible for the violent response? You're saying state violence is justified to quell civilian violence. But you also seem to be saying state violence is unjustified (or at least unwise) against non-violent protesters. But it's a pretty rare thing for both the state and the protesters to mind their p's and q's when the stakes are high. It seems reasonable to suggest that the only time in recent history that both the state and protesters are restrained enough to carry out this ideal is when middle aged white people complain about something. What do you think is the explanation for that?

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

2 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Pretty much.

@happycamper if you want to argue that violence is an inevitable symptom of significant change, I would agree for the most part.  However arguing that it invariably deserves credit (using the word discredit) for such change, I would say is false.

 

Symptom? Cause? I don't know. I do know that it has happened every time there has been significant progress in the human condition in this country. Discrediting a movement because violence has happened is disingenuous in the extreme. 

I believe that our history is told in a way that deliberately de-emphasizes the success of, let's call it "rowdy", civil disobedience because it works. Changing is a pain in the ass; any state actor isn't going to want a how to guide on how to get change. It's not a conspiracy so much as it is recognizing the inherent desires of a bureaucracy.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

Symptom? Cause? I don't know. I do know that it has happened every time there has been significant progress in the human condition in this country. Discrediting a movement because violence has happened is disingenuous in the extreme. 

I believe that our history is told in a way that deliberately de-emphasizes the success of, let's call it "rowdy", civil disobedience because it works. Changing is a pain in the ass; any state actor isn't going to want a how to guide on how to get change. It's not a conspiracy so much as it is recognizing the inherent desires of a bureaucracy.

To the contrary.  It seems that pop culture and the people have always idiolized the rowdy rebel.  The bootleggers, The Dillingers and Nelsons, Tossing tea into a harbor.  We love a rebel with a cause.  We love the bad guy who fights the system.  

If you are not certain in your convictions if violence is an inevitable symptom or cause, maybe you are not being fair with @thelawlorfaithful?  He is not trying, from what I have read, to say the movement and the protests should be discredited because of violence.  Rather that any violence and destruction of property hinders their cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

To the contrary.  It seems that pop culture and the people have always idiolized the rowdy rebel.  The bootleggers, The Dillingers and Nelsons, Tossing tea into a harbor.  We love a rebel with a cause.  We love the bad guy who fights the system.  

I said the education system, not pop culture. But... hell, pop culture is "there was slavery :( But then we fought a civil war and it was over ! :) Then there was racism! :( but then MLK had a speech! :) And then he died :( but that made racism end! :) The end!"

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

If you are not certain in your convictions if violence is an inevitable symptom or cause, maybe you are not being fair with @thelawlorfaithful?  He is not trying, from what I have read, to say the movement and the protests should be discredited because of violence.  Rather that any violence and destruction of property hinders their cause.

One must consider the source. Lawlor has been condoning police violence, been criticizing any protesters as unacceptable because some violence has happened, and has repeatedly condoned state violence on the people over less violence done by the people. He seems to be looking to discredit the protesters.

I really encourage you to look in to the civil rights movement more. If you get interested I know you will do a better job of researching it than I could. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

At the same time, to what extent are the state's actions responsible for the violent response? You're saying state violence is justified to quell civilian violence. But you also seem to be saying state violence is unjustified (or at least unwise) against non-violent protesters. But it's a pretty rare thing for both the state and the protesters to mind their p's and q's when the stakes are high. It seems reasonable to suggest that the only time in recent history that both the state and protesters are restrained enough to carry out this ideal is when middle aged white people complain about something. What do you think is the explanation for that?

Part of what the guy’s research shows is that violence is the preeminent factor in elevating the cause in the public consciousness. There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of peaceful protests these past few weeks that didn’t get equal publicity because there were so many that were not peaceful. If it bleeds it leads, if it burns the channel they do not turn. You can’t cover a violent protest, with burning and looting, while still claiming it to be peaceful. People have eyes, you lose the credibility about what you’re saying with that kind of double talk. 

King understood this fundamentally. What the guy’s research shows is that who is perpetrating the violence matters most to how it has to be covered. When it’s the state or vigilantes inflicting the violence on peaceful protests, the coverage is sympathetic and public opinion sides with the cause. When both sides are violent or the protestors are the perpetrators, the opposite is true.  

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

2 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

blue-dream-basa.jpg

In some Western European countries sex is a right, and if you are a disabled person the state will pay a prostitute to come and service you. I’m not joking. I forgot what country though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...