The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Well when it's your store that you own getting fucking smashed to pieces and looted, I guess you can comfort yourself knowing that the social contract is being renegotiated.
It's not protest to get the authorities to do something different, though; it's protest when there's really nothing to be done. Like people at the California schools who protest budget cuts -- yeah, they got handed a raw deal, they have a right to be angry, but the money just isn't there. What can possibly be done if the money isn't there?
Also. Glad to see other Marx Brothers fans. When I was a kid I dressed up as Groucho for Halloween and nobody knew who I was... I was the last of my kind. It's a lonely feeling.
These riots, even though the people of Greece might have all the reasons to riot, seem like nothing but mindless, disorganized, good ol' burnin' and pillagin'. I doubt that even half the people there understand why exactly their country is fucked.
Well that's not really necessary for it to be effective.
Effective protest needs to be a breach of the social contract -- essentially demanding a renegotiation of the obligations of the state to the citizenry.
They can be peaceful, but if they are they need to be still somehow disruptive and undermine the social order, such as demonstrating an indifference to the laws of the land and defiance of their enforcement (thereby undermining the ability of the state to enforce its laws at all, and without enforcement there is no law).
That shit takes a long time. That's your Ghandis and your Dr. Kings and so forth. The only quick example of that I can think of is the first Roman Plebian secession, where everyone just got up and left the city (it was still just a city-state at the time, c. 400 BCE). Now, obviously this isn't feasible in a modern nation-state.
Riots, while more destructive in the short-run, are certainly a viable option for achieving the basic purpose of protest more quickly.
Personally, I frown on violence, but to assert that rioting is somehow not a true/appropriate/effective form of protest is to misunderstand the purpose of protest.
I just hope the rioters understand the paradigm shift in consciousness as a police officer's baton smashes their skull in because they are criminals. That social contract being beaten into your ribcage can be one hell of a bitch. Just saying.
BusterKNegativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
I think the point at which you are willing to justify actions that would otherwise be abhorrent to you because they align with your political ideology is the point at which your ideology ceases to mean anything
I think the point at which you are willing to justify actions that would otherwise be abhorrent to you because they align with your political ideology is the point at which your ideology ceases to mean anything
er
do you apply this standard to, say, war?
What about law enforcement?
Imprisoning people against their will is pretty awful, unless you have an ideological justification for it.
This post is nonsense, as are most posts that attempt to strip context and nuance from arguments.
Almost any action can be abhorrent under some circumstances and very much justifiable in others.
I'm not even saying I like rioting! I think probably peaceful protest is better in the long run, but I'm just saying I get tired of the orthodoxy that rioting is bad, peaceful protest is good, there's no room for debate.
I have a tendency to not like any dogmatic or orthodox opinion, because I think they tend to be derived more from a moral satisfaction of basic values than any real critical analysis of the specific issues at hand, or what we might reasonably expect the consequences of certain actions to be.
I'm a consequentialist. Values aren't important to me. Consequences are. Sometimes riots work. Sometimes they get the job done, and move society forward.
Am I endorsing them forever under all circumstances? No. But I hate it whenever we limit our discussions, and refuse to think critically about our own ideals, or hear out opposing options.
Backwardsname on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
I think the point at which you are willing to justify actions that would otherwise be abhorrent to you because they align with your political ideology is the point at which your ideology ceases to mean anything
I just hope the rioters understand the paradigm shift in consciousness as a police officer's baton smashes their skull in because they are criminals. That social contract being beaten into your ribcage can be one hell of a bitch. Just saying.
Yes, well, when people are driven to what they perceive as an intolerable state of affairs, they are generally willing to risk violent consequences.
Let me ask all of you: would you be responding this way to violent protest in, say, Iran? What if people took to the streets and hurled Molotovs at the Basij militias? What if they threw rocks at the Revolutionary Guard and burned down the presidential mansion?
Would any of you really be condemning them as improper, or as criminals? I think this is unlikely. I think we would probably praise them for their bravery at standing up to an oppressive regime.
The difference here is a disagreement about whether or not the situation the Greek people face today is damaging enough to justify violence.
I think where the disconnect is occurring is that most people seem to think rioting over the Governments attempts to balance their budget by cutting into some pretty generous social programs is an gross and obvious overreaction.
Edit: 'Round these parts, at least.
sarukun on
0
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
I just hope the rioters understand the paradigm shift in consciousness as a police officer's baton smashes their skull in because they are criminals. That social contract being beaten into your ribcage can be one hell of a bitch. Just saying.
Yes, well, when people are driven to what they perceive as an intolerable state of affairs, they are generally willing to risk violent consequences.
Let me ask all of you: would you be responding this way to violent protest in, say, Iran? What if people took to the streets and hurled Molotovs at the Basij militias? What if they threw rocks at the Revolutionary Guard and burned down the presidential mansion?
Would any of you really be condemning them as improper, or as criminals? I think this is unlikely. I think we would probably praise them for their bravery at standing up to an oppressive regime.
The difference here is a disagreement about whether or not the situation the Greek people face today is damaging enough to justify violence.
It's a discussion worth having.
Yes, I would definitely if people were looting.
If it was against just the "powers in charge" which the rioters view as causing all the "problems", then I guess it depends on a whole lot of circumstances. Like Neo Nazis throwing rocks at NYC cops because they want to have a parade in Harlem...I believe New York's finest have not only a right but a privilege to beat the shit out of those people.
Ultimately, what I dislike is people who riot and then bitch about the consequences of rioting, which is usually violence against you. There are more productive ways to stand up to an oppressive regime.
Yeah but that corner store that's been there for twenty years was totally asking to get burnt and looted. Store thinks it's so much better than me with it's merchandise and such.
A Dabble Of Thelonius on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Hm, fair point. Although looting can go both ways. It can reflect poorly on the protestors, or it can direct anger at the leaders whose actions brought about the anger and the protests in the first place/who are failing to stop the situation from spiraling out of control.
Sometimes it might even be necessary to produce the level of social unrest that is required to generate significant social upheaval. After all, many times these sort of protests/riots are carried out by a relatively small part of the population. General decay of law and order can be a way to get a greater mass of people involved.
But, certainly, I would agree it's generally best to not loot.
If it was against just the "powers in charge" which the rioters view as causing all the "problems", then I guess it depends on a whole lot of circumstances. Like Neo Nazis throwing rocks at NYC cops because they want to have a parade in Harlem...I believe New York's finest have not only a right but a privilege to beat the shit out of those people.
Well, sure, because they aren't really standing up to oppression, but in fact are agents of oppression (or, well, impotent attempted oppression). So of course we aren't sympathetic to them, nor should we be.
Ultimately, what I dislike is people who riot and then bitch about the consequences of rioting, which is usually violence against you. There are more productive ways to stand up to an oppressive regime.
Well, you may know that those are the consequences going in, but you don't have to like them. Just because you sign up for something risky or dangerous doesn't mean you have to accept that danger without question or complaint.
Backwardsname on
0
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
Well, you may know that those are the consequences going in, but you don't have to like them. Just because you sign up for something risky or dangerous doesn't mean you have to accept that danger without question or complaint.
Yes, yes you do. If you willingly engage in an activity knowing that there are consequences, and the consequences nightstick you upside the skull, then perhaps you should not have engaged in said activity if you don't like that outcome.
Well, you may know that those are the consequences going in, but you don't have to like them. Just because you sign up for something risky or dangerous doesn't mean you have to accept that danger without question or complaint.
Yes, yes you do. If you willingly engage in an activity knowing that there are consequences, and the consequences nightstick you upside the skull, then perhaps you should not have engaged in said activity if you don't like that outcome.
Er, but the broadness with which you're saying this would also apply to, say, a Civil Rights protestor in Selma Alabama.
Like, just because he knows that he's going to get blasted with fire-hoses and attacked by dogs doesn't make it acceptable, or justice.
Well, you may know that those are the consequences going in, but you don't have to like them. Just because you sign up for something risky or dangerous doesn't mean you have to accept that danger without question or complaint.
Yes, yes you do. If you willingly engage in an activity knowing that there are consequences, and the consequences nightstick you upside the skull, then perhaps you should not have engaged in said activity if you don't like that outcome.
This is why I plan to beat my children.
(I'm not actually going to beat my children.)
sarukun on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
"Hmm yes what is justice?" Lincoln asked as he slowly became erect.
this has been an excerpt from my slashfic concerning the Lincoln-Douglas debates
PiptheFair on
0
BusterKNegativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered Userregular
Well, you may know that those are the consequences going in, but you don't have to like them. Just because you sign up for something risky or dangerous doesn't mean you have to accept that danger without question or complaint.
Yes, yes you do. If you willingly engage in an activity knowing that there are consequences, and the consequences nightstick you upside the skull, then perhaps you should not have engaged in said activity if you don't like that outcome.
Er, but the broadness with which you're saying this would also apply to, say, a Civil Rights protestor in Selma Alabama.
Like, just because he knows that he's going to get blasted with fire-hoses and attacked by dogs doesn't make it acceptable, or justice.
That is not violent protest, though
A better example would be a member of the Black Panthers, who considered themselves to be in an all-out war with the white society
AMP'd on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
I just hope the rioters understand the paradigm shift in consciousness as a police officer's baton smashes their skull in because they are criminals. That social contract being beaten into your ribcage can be one hell of a bitch. Just saying.
Yes, well, when people are driven to what they perceive as an intolerable state of affairs, they are generally willing to risk violent consequences.
Let me ask all of you: would you be responding this way to violent protest in, say, Iran? What if people took to the streets and hurled Molotovs at the Basij militias? What if they threw rocks at the Revolutionary Guard and burned down the presidential mansion?
Would any of you really be condemning them as improper, or as criminals? I think this is unlikely. I think we would probably praise them for their bravery at standing up to an oppressive regime.
The difference here is a disagreement about whether or not the situation the Greek people face today is damaging enough to justify violence.
It's a discussion worth having.
good lord
ok, basics:
when engaged in civil disobedience it is reasonable to break those laws which are unjust
if the state is, say, segregating the population by race, you stage sit-ins. If you really have a moral problem with the taxation scheme, you refuse to pay and accept your jail time
if the state is actually engaged in violent repression then it is reasonable to violently respond against the organs of the state that perpetuate it
if you're out there saying "fuck the war in Iraq!" and you've decided to prove it by blocking a freeway onramp or you're pissed about the state of the economy so you smash windows, you are being neither productive nor ethical
basically if you're going out and causing trouble because you think the trouble is the point, you're doing it wrong
People don't usually up and riot for no reason at all
but I am not educated in greek current affairs enough to really assert anything in here
OJ verdict
Phillies win world series
Rodney King riots
While upsetting, no need
Drunken idiots flip cars and light them on fire because their team won?
Upsetting yes, but not so upsetting you deserve to steal shit from a business.
Hah, I find it troubling but not surprising that you lump all three of these together (sorry but it pretty much screams "black folks are a bunch of stupid criminals").
Also, Rodney King was not as baseless as a lot of white people want to think it was. By that point, the LAPD and law enforcement generally had been for nearly a decade shifting to a centralized, militarized mode of interaction with the populace, particularly in black neighborhoods.
Peoples homes would get bulldozed by actual tanks, and not always even people who would ultimately be found guilty of anything!
The war on drugs was in full swing, which to this day unfairly and disproportionately targets African Americans, and many black Angelenos felt abandoned by a city that was letting their neighborhoods devolve into crime- and drug-ridden ghettos, and whose only response was a terrorizing, impersonal police presence that made innocent feel persecuted along with the guilty.
Rodney King should have been a wake-up call for this country. Maybe if it hadn't been an isolated event, we would have actually done something about the horrifying racial inequality in our prison and justice system.
Posts
lifetyles for the greater good
Also. Glad to see other Marx Brothers fans. When I was a kid I dressed up as Groucho for Halloween and nobody knew who I was... I was the last of my kind. It's a lonely feeling.
http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
I just hope the rioters understand the paradigm shift in consciousness as a police officer's baton smashes their skull in because they are criminals. That social contract being beaten into your ribcage can be one hell of a bitch. Just saying.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
er
do you apply this standard to, say, war?
What about law enforcement?
Imprisoning people against their will is pretty awful, unless you have an ideological justification for it.
This post is nonsense, as are most posts that attempt to strip context and nuance from arguments.
Almost any action can be abhorrent under some circumstances and very much justifiable in others.
why is that dude wearing a keffiyeh
I have a tendency to not like any dogmatic or orthodox opinion, because I think they tend to be derived more from a moral satisfaction of basic values than any real critical analysis of the specific issues at hand, or what we might reasonably expect the consequences of certain actions to be.
I'm a consequentialist. Values aren't important to me. Consequences are. Sometimes riots work. Sometimes they get the job done, and move society forward.
Am I endorsing them forever under all circumstances? No. But I hate it whenever we limit our discussions, and refuse to think critically about our own ideals, or hear out opposing options.
love you
Oh god, the way he is peeking out from behind the dumpster.
Twitter Steam
PS Day at the Races is the best.
he is like the journalist of dogs.
"The people must know."
Yes, well, when people are driven to what they perceive as an intolerable state of affairs, they are generally willing to risk violent consequences.
Let me ask all of you: would you be responding this way to violent protest in, say, Iran? What if people took to the streets and hurled Molotovs at the Basij militias? What if they threw rocks at the Revolutionary Guard and burned down the presidential mansion?
Would any of you really be condemning them as improper, or as criminals? I think this is unlikely. I think we would probably praise them for their bravery at standing up to an oppressive regime.
The difference here is a disagreement about whether or not the situation the Greek people face today is damaging enough to justify violence.
It's a discussion worth having.
Edit: 'Round these parts, at least.
Yes, I would definitely if people were looting.
If it was against just the "powers in charge" which the rioters view as causing all the "problems", then I guess it depends on a whole lot of circumstances. Like Neo Nazis throwing rocks at NYC cops because they want to have a parade in Harlem...I believe New York's finest have not only a right but a privilege to beat the shit out of those people.
Ultimately, what I dislike is people who riot and then bitch about the consequences of rioting, which is usually violence against you. There are more productive ways to stand up to an oppressive regime.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
it was owned by american bankers and the super rich duh hth
but I am not educated in greek current affairs enough to really assert anything in here
it's unfortunate that it is sometimes necessary
all of greece is bankrupt
all of it
so the government decided to make significant cutbacks and shitloads of EU countries are bailing them out
Hm, fair point. Although looting can go both ways. It can reflect poorly on the protestors, or it can direct anger at the leaders whose actions brought about the anger and the protests in the first place/who are failing to stop the situation from spiraling out of control.
Sometimes it might even be necessary to produce the level of social unrest that is required to generate significant social upheaval. After all, many times these sort of protests/riots are carried out by a relatively small part of the population. General decay of law and order can be a way to get a greater mass of people involved.
But, certainly, I would agree it's generally best to not loot.
Well, sure, because they aren't really standing up to oppression, but in fact are agents of oppression (or, well, impotent attempted oppression). So of course we aren't sympathetic to them, nor should we be.
Well, you may know that those are the consequences going in, but you don't have to like them. Just because you sign up for something risky or dangerous doesn't mean you have to accept that danger without question or complaint.
OJ verdict
Phillies win world series
Rodney King riots
While upsetting, no need
Drunken idiots flip cars and light them on fire because their team won?
Upsetting yes, but not so upsetting you deserve to steal shit from a business.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Yes, yes you do. If you willingly engage in an activity knowing that there are consequences, and the consequences nightstick you upside the skull, then perhaps you should not have engaged in said activity if you don't like that outcome.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
It's the baker's fault if you get fat, get diabetes, or choke on it. Go for it.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Er, but the broadness with which you're saying this would also apply to, say, a Civil Rights protestor in Selma Alabama.
Like, just because he knows that he's going to get blasted with fire-hoses and attacked by dogs doesn't make it acceptable, or justice.
why wouldn't you eat a cake
that's sitting right in front of you
That would be nice
This is why I plan to beat my children.
(I'm not actually going to beat my children.)
this has been an excerpt from my slashfic concerning the Lincoln-Douglas debates
I happen to have that wikipedia entry open right now
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
That is not violent protest, though
A better example would be a member of the Black Panthers, who considered themselves to be in an all-out war with the white society
"capitalism is god's chosen economic system, communazis and socialists are spawn of satan"
good lord
ok, basics:
when engaged in civil disobedience it is reasonable to break those laws which are unjust
if the state is, say, segregating the population by race, you stage sit-ins. If you really have a moral problem with the taxation scheme, you refuse to pay and accept your jail time
if the state is actually engaged in violent repression then it is reasonable to violently respond against the organs of the state that perpetuate it
if you're out there saying "fuck the war in Iraq!" and you've decided to prove it by blocking a freeway onramp or you're pissed about the state of the economy so you smash windows, you are being neither productive nor ethical
basically if you're going out and causing trouble because you think the trouble is the point, you're doing it wrong
Hah, I find it troubling but not surprising that you lump all three of these together (sorry but it pretty much screams "black folks are a bunch of stupid criminals").
Also, Rodney King was not as baseless as a lot of white people want to think it was. By that point, the LAPD and law enforcement generally had been for nearly a decade shifting to a centralized, militarized mode of interaction with the populace, particularly in black neighborhoods.
Peoples homes would get bulldozed by actual tanks, and not always even people who would ultimately be found guilty of anything!
The war on drugs was in full swing, which to this day unfairly and disproportionately targets African Americans, and many black Angelenos felt abandoned by a city that was letting their neighborhoods devolve into crime- and drug-ridden ghettos, and whose only response was a terrorizing, impersonal police presence that made innocent feel persecuted along with the guilty.
Rodney King should have been a wake-up call for this country. Maybe if it hadn't been an isolated event, we would have actually done something about the horrifying racial inequality in our prison and justice system.