Support NeoGAF

[IncandescentPrecept]

Some probably are, way more are benefiting from those crimes to this day.


Oh, and whoever brought up Mandela needs to recheck his history ASAP.

What do we do about those who are benefitting from it? Make them for the crime of others?

 

[BokehKing]

Lol no, the history of the world is literally built off of violent revolution to make the powerful whom do not care for those below them listen. It's been documented time and time again. Civil rights was littered with violence and rioting and looting. This opinion you hold is literally proven wrong by the vast majority of history in the world.

What will change, will you get more rights than you already have? Special treatment? I don't get it? What will change?

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

What do we do about those who are benefitting from it? Make them for the crime of others?

OH! I have an article for that!

Read up, it's a long one.

The US' history is filled with plunder. If we can't own up to that, this country ain't going anywhere.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

Of course, violence will bring change - so why not kill a few policemen (making sure they're white) to bring about better change?

 

[Aeriscloud]

Riot, protest, do what you think is right for your rights. However, when you are destroying businesses in your own community you are taking jobs away from someone that might need said job very badly, and that person is also likely living in your community.

 

[NIGHT-]

I'm all for rioting. But looting is a cowardly move that only hurts your own community. Seems like a lot of people just jump in on these protest for personal gains with looting. Pathetic

 

[Gotdatmoney]

What will change, will you get more rights than you already have? Special treatment? I don't get it? What will change?

What does your statement have to do with what I said? It's pretty obvious why all these protests and riots are popping up so unless you think black people (which I didn't even mention) are just bitching about nothing I can't possibly understand what you are going on about.

Forget civil rights, forget America, the history of the world is filled with violent riots. And those riots in combination with other factors have lead to change. To ever deny that truth is simply foolish and it's wrong.

 

[Nafai1123]

What will change, will you get more rights than you already have? Special treatment? I don't get it? What will change?

This is ultimately the problem imo. Violence can cause change when the change that is wanted is clear and concise. At this point many want change in the police force, but how to implement that change isn't very clear.

 

[Mimosa97]

As a french guy, I know that strikes and rioting are necessary for things to change for the better. I just need to look at the History of my own country to understand that.What I disagree with is your stance on looting.

I don't see the material damages as the biggest issue here. In fact my real issue is that I've always felt like the people involved in those activities had nothing to do with the people rioting in the first place. The " cause " doesn't mean much to them. I feel like the people protesting to improve our society have too much respect for the cause they're defending to resort to looting. Where I agree with you is that when there's rioting, there's a big chance that there will be looting. But I won't go as far as saying that looting as a part of rioting. Looting is one of many possible consequences. And it's an avoidable one. So I think you're wrong when you say that " looting " is only natural.

Now the problem is that in the public perception, there isn't much difference between protesters/rioters and looters. And this is an issue everywhere. In your first post you talked about the May 68 events in France. Well as your quote pointed out, in the next election french people voted " en masse " for De Gaulle to restore peace and security etc... The vast majority of the French people didn't give a fuck about the legitimate causes those students were defending and all they wanted was to preserve the status quo. Between the protesters and the police officer, your average citizen will always choose the latter. That's why looting isn't " necessary " at all but also looting doesn't really " kill " the message as much as you would think. But I also have to say is that De Gaulle was a great president (the best we ever had) and a war hero but this is off-topic.

In the end, I think that in our day and age, same as 40,50,100 years ago, the best way to make change happen is to go on strike and " paralyze " the whole mecanic. I don't think there's much hope in rioting nowadays. It might work if it's a concerted effort throughout the country. But still it might turn against you. People are way too attached to their little confortable lives to give a fuck. I feel like if you want your voice heard, you need to really interrupt the smooth running of the institutions. Starting for instance with the public transport. When people won't be able to go to work in the morning that's when they'll start listening and they'll turn to their government and urge them to find a solution.

 

[Amir0x]

Nuclear weapons are awful. Nuclear weapons however put an end to the war with Japan. They worked. Our hatred of them does not change the fact that they worked.

I think the problem with some in this topic is people keep thinking that facing the fact violence often works means you must endorse those actions. It does not mean that. It does mean we have to accept that in the analysis of these events, violence does not automatically mean you lose the point of your message or that people fail to hear your message, nor does it mean that it won't actually work. It also doesn't -only- mean these are opportunists. It means these are angry people and that anger has a source, and you must fix the source of that anger in order to stop this.

 

[wildfire]

Of course, violence will bring change

You're the same as the people who say violence has never done anything. All you can do is talk in absolutes in order to support extreme thinking.

so why not kill a few policemen (making sure they're white) to bring about better change?

Case in point of how dishonest you are.

 

[Guevara]

Rioting only works when there is strong popular support behind the object.

It drives me nuts when people bring up the Revolutionary War. Only a small percentage of Americans at the time were actually loyalists, the majority of Americans were somewhat or strongly in favor of rebellion. Add to that that the British were over-extended and you have the recipe for a successful action.

There are also many examples of unsuccessful riots in American history. The Watts riots, and the riots after MLK was assassinated killed momentum for future Civil Rights legislation, after the successes of 1964 and 1968, for a generation.

Can't just say: riots work, or riots don't work. Riots work when they reflect the popular viewpoint of the time.

 

[MBison]

Great posts mimosa and amirox

 

[EdibleKnife]

I'd argue people don't in the main way that matters aka voting. You look at the voter turn out, and it's low unless it's the one day people vote for president.

Voter turn out sucks for everything else.

You should read The New Jim Crow and articles about the idea of voter discrimination:

Last month the American Civil Liberties Union sued the school board under the Voting Rights Act, arguing that the way its members are elected blocks minority voters from fully participating in the political process.

The method is known as “at large” voting, and lets voters cast ballots for all candidates in the district, regardless of where the voters live. Since the district’s voting-age population is 50 percent white and 47 percent black, and since both groups there tend to vote along strict racial lines, the white voters’ candidates almost always win.

The lawsuit, filed in a Missouri federal court on Dec. 18, contends that the white board members have not been attentive enough to the needs of black students, and in 2013 the board dismissed the district’s first black superintendent without explanation.

The suit calls for at-large voting to be replaced with another system, like one that allows residents to vote for a candidate who lives in their part of the district, which would make it possible for majority-black neighborhoods to elect board members of their choice.

In honor of the VRA's anniversary, here are five recent and egregious examples of minority discrimination that were blocked by Section 5, the part of the law the Supreme Court eviscerated in June:

• In 2001, the all-white board of aldermen in the town of Kilmichael, Mississippi (pop. 830), canceled town elections after an unprecedented number of black candidates made it onto the ballot. When the Department of Justice (DOJ) forced an election and the town finally voted, it elected its first black mayor and three black aldermen.
• During a 2004 city council primary in Bayou La Batre, Alabama, a Vietnamese American candidate, Phuong Tan Huynh, ran against white incumbent Jackie Ladnier. Ladnier and his supporters challenged about 50 Asian American voters at the polls. Their reason? If they couldn't speak English well, they might not be citizens. The DOJ intervened, and Huynh became the first Asian American on the city council.
• Texas is perfect example of the continued need for the VRA. The state has been repeatedly blocked from implementing both local and statewide changes that blatantly disenfranchise minority voters, from redistricting schemes to the elimination of polling places and early voting in minority districts. A report from Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund found that the between 1982 and 2006 Texas was second only to Mississippi in the number of DOJ objections under Section 5. One example: In 2007, officials in Waller County, home to the historically black Prairie View A&M University, enacted strict voter registration rules (without federal approval) that allowed them to reject voter registration applications, mostly from PVAMU students, for minor errors or omissions. After the Justice Department sued the county, a local judge told the Houston Chronicle that registrars "were maybe being a little picky with some of the things they were rejecting for."
• In 2008, Alaska submitted for federal preclearance a plan that would have required some Native Alaskan voters to travel by air or boat to cast a ballot. The state withdrew its submission after it was challenged by the DOJ.
• After the 2010 Census indicated that blacks had become the majority of the voting-age population in Georgia's Augusta-Richmond, a consolidated city and county, the state Legislature passed a bill that rescheduled voting from November, which had a traditionally high black voter turnout, to July, which had a low turnout overall, but especially for blacks. The change only affected Augusta-Richmond, and, not surprisingly, was rejected under Section 5.

I don't disagree that voter turnout is poor within all realms but it doesn't help still that there are continued practices till this day that use the fact that the minority is a minority against them when it comes to voting.

NYT
MotherJones

 

[thequickandthedead]

Haven't been following the riots but noticed recent tweets by Wendell Pierce on my feed.

Thoughts?

 

[Mrmartel]

Alas, the United States managed to kill it's Mandela. Both of them.

Mandela's legacy is falling apart in South Africa. Really a simple google news check will show the devolving of that country into a state of chaos. It been a continuing story for the last 10 years, especially in last few.

Mandela was a temporary bandage in a country that is getting worst in every aspect.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Haven't been following the riots but noticed recent tweets by Wendell Pierce on my feed.

Thoughts?

You seem to agree

I think it's fairly obvious looters aren't down with the cause. Rioters, it gets unclear because rage is rage

 

[wildfire]

Rioting only works when there is strong popular support behind the object.

It drives me nuts when people bring up the Revolutionary War. Only a small percentage of Americans at the time were actually loyalists, the majority of Americans were somewhat or strongly in favor of rebellion. Add to that that the British were over-extended and you have the recipe for a successful action.

There are many examples of unsuccessful riots in American history. The Watts riots, and the riots after MLK was assassinated killed momentum for future Civil Rights legislation, after the successes of 1964 and 1968, for a generation.

Can't just say: riots work, or riots don't work. Riots work when they reflect the popular viewpoint of the time.

This is a well reasoned assessment. It's pretty much why I don't bring up the French Revolution or similar events. The discontent was widespread while the situation bothering American's today are mostly the problem of certain minority groups and those outside those groups with a conscious and an alignment of standards.

 

[MBison]

Haven't been following the riots but noticed recent tweets by Wendell Pierce on my feed.

Thoughts?

Mostly agree.

Wouldn't it be more revolutionary and effective to surround the Baltimore police station with megaphones and signs and actual protesting against a terrible act?

Nope lets rob and burn down a CVS

 

[SeanR1221]

Nuclear weapons are awful. Nuclear weapons however put an end to the war with Japan. They worked. Out hatred of them does not change the fact that they worked.

I think the problem with some in this topic is people keep thinking that facing the fact violence often works means you must endorse those actions. It does not mean that. It does mean we have to accept that in the analysis of these events, violence does not automatically mean you lose the point of your message or that people fail to hear your message, nor does it mean that it won't actually work. It also doesn't -only- mean these are opportunists. It means these are angry people and that anger has a source, and you must fix the source of that anger in order to stop this.

If we look at this behaviorally and paint some pretty broad strokes, it's a very poor way to change behavior that comes with a lot of side effects. Sure, it can be effective, but it's typically a reactive avoidance rather than something proactive. Unfortunately altering and manipulating the environment for a proactive change can be difficult/timely/costly :/

 

[BokehKing]

Forget civil rights, forget America, the history of the world is filled with violent riots. And those riots in combination with other factors have lead to change. To ever deny that truth is simply foolish and it's wrong.

Again I ask, what do you expect to change? For cops to be nicer to the gangs in Baltimore? For people to cooperate when the police ask for help after a gang gun fight, looking for the shooter. People in the projects need to change as well I'd they expect change.

 

[Mimosa97]

Great posts mimosa and amirox

Thank you I tried to do my best with my limited english skills ^^

If theyre's at least one of you who read my post and liked it then I'm glad i wrote it

 

[Vanillalite]

You should read The New Jim Crow and articles about the idea of voter discrimination:





I don't disagree that voter turnout is poor within all realms but it doesn't help still that there are continued practices till this day that use the fact that the minority is a minority against them when it comes to voting.

NYT
MotherJones

Oh I don't disagree. There is def a systematic movement to supress minority voters.

Even still voting turn out for all races goes down when it isn't the one day we elect the president. Not to say it would fix things, but I can't help but think voices would be better heard if people turned out for all elections.

For some reason people just have this mindset that the other elections that elect senators, mayors, governors, sheriffs ect... don't matter enough for them to get their ass to the poll.

 

[Coriolanus]

Mandela's legacy is falling apart in South Africa. Really a simple google news check will show the devolving of that country into a state of chaos. It been a continuing story for the last 10 years, especially in last few.

Mandela was a temporary bandage in a country that is getting worst in every aspect.

I've no idea what you're arguing for.

 

[Amir0x]

Again I ask, what do you expect to change? For cops to be nicer to the gangs in Baltimore? For people to cooperate when the police ask for help after a gang gun fight, looking for the shooter. People in the projects need to change as well I'd they expect change.

The injustice is not even close to equal on both sides sooo

 

[dinazimmerman]

Nuclear weapons are awful. Nuclear weapons however put an end to the war with Japan. They worked. Out hatred of them does not change the fact that they worked.

I think the problem with some in this topic is people keep thinking that facing the fact violence often works means you must endorse those actions. It does not mean that. It does mean we have to accept that in the analysis of these events, violence does not automatically mean you lose the point of your message or that people fail to hear your message, nor does it mean that it won't actually work. It also doesn't -only- mean these are opportunists. It means these are angry people and that anger has a source, and you must fix the source of that anger in order to stop this.

Yes, but violence is not always effective. A casual review of history cannot tell us the effectiveness of violence because we do not see the counterfactual (what would have happened if the protests were not violent?).

Statistical analysis gives us a still imperfect but considerably better view of the effectiveness of violence. Consider this very recent paper by a Princeton political scientist:

Link: http://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Wasow04092015/Wasow04092015.pdf

Abstract

Between 1963 and 1967, American public opinion and policy on issues of race whipsawed from a spike in concern about civil rights to a widespread call for “law and order.” Current scholarship points to the role of elite actors and feelings of group threat but these factors cannot adequately explain temporal and geographic variation in attitudes and voting behavior. Using finer grained and geocoded data, I find that black-led protest movements and the types of tactics employed are also critical to explaining white support or opposition to African American interests. In the 1964, 1968 and 1972 presidential elections, proximity to black-led nonviolent protests was associated with increased county-level Democratic vote-share. By contrast, proximity to black-led violent protests caused a substantively significant decline in Democratic vote-share. These results suggest that feelings of cross-race commonality as well as threat are dynamic, contextual and amenable to manipulation by both elites and masses.

Excerpt from introduction:

Examining counterfactual scenarios in the 1968 election, I estimate that fewer violent protests are associated with a substantially increased likelihood that the Democratic presidential nominee, Hubert Humphrey, would have beaten the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon. As African Americans were strongly identified with the Democratic party in this time period, my results suggest that, in at least some contexts, political violence by a subordinate group may contribute to a backlash among segments of the dominant group and encourage outcomes directly at odds with the preferences of the protestors.

 

[LosDaddie]

You guys? Advocating? We've all advocated for the violence because we didn't do enough to stop injustice.

It's like you condone pushing a man off a building but then protest when he splatters on the ground. Makes no fucking sense.

You got me there.

No, we're saying that rioting, looting, violence during situation of civil unrest are things that are common. We're saying that people who go "this is pointless, what does it accomplish" are literally ignoring the history of the world when they say that. Of course no one wants riots and violence. No one would ever want it to come to that, we're saying that when it does come to this it's not pointless and it does have a purpose and ultimately in the history of the world it does actually achieve change. I don;t understand how any could not grasp this concept.

Right. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. I doubt there are many on GAF who are confused as to why people are rioting/looting/protesting/whatever in Baltimore.

You keep stating that violence led to change in the past (which is obviously true). So if change is what you want right now, then are you advocating for violence right now?

 

[EdibleKnife]

Oh I don't disagree. There is def a systematic movement to supress minority voters.

Even still voting turn out for all races goes down when it isn't the one day we elect the president. Not to say it would fix things, but I can't help but think voices would be better heard if people turned out for all elections.

For some reason people just have this mindset that the other elections that elect senators, mayors, governors, sheriffs ect... don't matter enough for them to get their ass to the poll.

You're entirely right

 

[Amir0x]

Yes, but violence is not always effective. A casual review of history cannot tell us the effectiveness of violence because we do not see the counterfactual (what would have happened if the protests were not violent?).

Statistical analysis gives us a still imperfect but considerably better view of the effectiveness of violence. Consider this very recent paper by a Princeton political scientist:

I agree. I've addressed this in this thread a few times. My argument is not that it always works. It's not that it works X% of the time or that it is preferable to Y action. It's basically:

1. This is the natural result of years of injustice not being solved by those in power. We must fix those injustices if this is to stop.
2. That violent riots, which often include looting, frequently do work, and so its utility has to be understood when analyzing the horror of these events.
3. News media/individuals which try to argue that violent protests solely serve to obfuscate the message of those oppressed peoples are simply spouting shallow garbage that intentionally ignores the reality of history.

 

[maquiladora]

Haven't been following the riots but noticed recent tweets by Wendell Pierce on my feed.

Thoughts?

It's not as simple as that. Too many people looking at this in absolutes. The rioting against the police is totally understandable given what has happened. The looting of small local businesses seems to be other groups of people taking advantage of the momentary chaos. Shouldn't all be painted with the same brush.

 

[YoungHav]

What about the Mandela Tribunes South Africa or Gandhis peace protests? Peaceful ways do work. They really do. We don't have to cling to the old ways because horrible things eventually lead to good. It feels like a everything-is-relative-argument.

I've had this debate with several anthropologists and they all repeat what OP is saying: historically violent revolutions have been the main proponent of change. And maybe that is true, but that doesn't mean I have to support it when it causes the destruction of peoples lives who are caught in the crossfire.
Extremists scare me. And that is why I am neither a leader, a politician or an activist. I would never have it in me to make the necessary evil choices, even though I reap the rewards from those who came before me and directly or indirectly harmed many people.


My stance on it is that I don't understand the racial situation in America. It's barely comprehendable, so I won't judge the rioting and looting. It's impossible. But I see a man has his shop destroyed and his life ruined, and I feel for him. I see a video of a father who has 8 kids and they won't let him get to work because they are demonstrating and his entire life, and the life of his kids are being ruined by their only provider because something something larger is going on... My heart breaks. It's so incredible sad.

Gandhi did not do it alone. He would not have been successful without extremism. When a peace maker approaches power, power tells them to fuck off. When extremists pop up, power then reconsiders dealing with that initial peace maker. Deal w/Gandhi or deal with a bigger problem.

Peaceful protest will not work in America. The ruling class has too much incentive in the dehumanization of blacks and have made so much money off of black misery. If a magic wand were waved and every white person in America saw blacks as equal human beings, certain rich people would collectively lose billions in profits. Dehumanizing black people means dirt cheap prison labor, a windfall of money for companies that build prisons or provide services inside prisons, federal funding to police departments to continue the "drug war", it ensures poor and middle class white people are guaranteed to vote against their own interests if any policy that helps everyone is framed as helping mostly blacks and other minorities etc....

Of course racism and prejudice naturally come about but in the U.S. it has been grossly exacerbated by those in power because it has always been profitable to do so. It's a divide and conquer strategy that has been working for centuries.

 

[TheStruggler]

people have the right to be pissed off, people have the right to publicly protest their anger and explain why they are fed up however rioting and looting will already lead to nothing. You are stealing and tearing down your own city

 

[Ponn]

If we look at this behaviorally and paint some pretty broad strokes, it's a very poor way to change behavior that comes with a lot of side effects. Sure, it can be effective, but it's typically a reactive avoidance rather than something proactive. Unfortunately altering and manipulating the environment for a proactive change can be difficult/timely/costly :/

We like to think we have become a progressive society that has mastered or can control our more primal instincts. The sad reality is just like history shows time and again, major changes or shifts in societies or norms only come about through conflict and that really hasn't changed. And it's harder to get to that point not because we are somehow more enlightened than our forefathers but we are just more apathetic and disconnected through social media and our devices. And those with the power and control have gotten much better at keeping people in check and making them feel like they have a voice.

Look at the apathy that America has been showing towards these police shootings and even cases like Trayvon and the one locally here in Jacksonville. I mean, hell look at the Occupy Wall Street movement for another example without the racial backdrop. That movement which benefited the vast majority of America was ridiculed by the very people it stood for.

 

[Omega Ultimus]

Haven't been following the riots but noticed recent tweets by Wendell Pierce on my feed.

Thoughts?

Here's the source of the disconnect between those of us in support of black "America", and the rest who make up the silent majority. They see destruction of property, homes, business, etc., and ignore the crux of the issue. A general apathy to change the status quo, largely because they do not see the effects first-hand, mixed with skewed imagery like this results in either no change, or a degradation of the already tumultuous relationship between black America and not only the police force, but the rest of America, as well.

We have to ask ourselves: "who are we delivering this message to, and how will they perceive it?" Whether we want to or not, moderate America is needed to invoke change on the local, state, and national level. Rioting is a gamble, and how it seems to be playing out is not in our favor. It's a frustrating situation, but some sort of alternative needs to be enacted, because I honestly don't see any sort of lasting change being reached with this method of operation.

 

[MBison]

Gandhi did not do it alone. He would not have been successful without extremism. When a peace maker approaches power, power tells them to fuck off. When extremists pop up, power then reconsiders dealing with that initial peace maker. Deal w/Gandhi or deal with a bigger problem.

Peaceful protest will not work in America. The ruling class has too much incentive in the dehumanization of blacks and have made so much money off of black misery. If a magic wand were waved and every white person in America saw blacks as equal human beings, certain rich people would collectively lose billions in profits. Dehumanizing black people means dirt cheap prison labor, a windfall of money for companies that build prisons or provide services inside prisons, federal funding to police departments to continue the "drug war", it ensures poor and middle class white people are guaranteed to vote against their own interests if any policy that helps everyone is framed as helping mostly blacks and other minorities etc....

Of course racism and prejudice naturally come about but in the U.S. it has been grossly exacerbated by those in power because it has always been profitable to do so. It's a divide and conquer strategy that has been working for centuries.

Peaceful protest doesn't work in America? I seem to recall a lot of peaceful protesting and gatherings regarding same sex marriage and now it's legal in almost every state.

Or did I miss some LGBTQ looting?

 

[Amir0x]

Peaceful protest doesn't work in America? I seem to recall a lot of peaceful protesting and gatherings regarding same sex marriage and now it's legal in almost every state.

Or did I miss some LGBTQ looting?

you...didn't read this thread at all did you. :/

Read the OP, specifically under "examples of violent riots that worked." There's a surprise for you there. ;P

 

[MBison]

you...didn't read this thread at all did you. :/

Read the OP, specifically under "examples of violent riots that worked." There's a surprise for you there. ;P

I'm responding to Younghav who said peaceful protests don't work in America. And I'm specifically referring to the last 5 years or whatever of same sex marriage bans to the widespread legality we have today.

Which to my knowledge did not include looting

 

[Mizerman]

Peaceful protest doesn't work in America? I seem to recall a lot of peaceful protesting and gatherings regarding same sex marriage and now it's legal in almost every state.

Or did I miss some LGBTQ looting?

...You're either missing the point or you're trying to avoid it altogether.

At least be honest.

 

[EdibleKnife]

Peaceful protest doesn't work in America? I seem to recall a lot of peaceful protesting and gatherings regarding same sex marriage and now it's legal in almost every state.

Or did I miss some LGBTQ looting?

The Stonewall Riots are referenced in the OP. Arguably, we wouldn't be in the same place in terms of gay rights without that event. Riots have worked and peace has worked.

 

[Amir0x]

I'm responding to Younghav who said peaceful protests don't work in America.

Right but your argument is that the LGBTQ rights movement was defined solely by peaceful protests, yet the modern LGBTQ movement was literally galvanized by a violent protest. So both peaceful and violent action caused the result we see today in that case.

 

[SeanR1221]

We like to think we have become a progressive society that has mastered or can control our more primal instincts. The sad reality is just like history shows time and again, major changes or shifts in societies or norms only come about through conflict and that really hasn't changed. And it's harder to get to that point not because we are somehow more enlightened than our forefathers but we are just more apathetic and disconnected through social media and our devices. And those with the power and control have gotten much better at keeping people in check and making them feel like they have a voice.

Look at the apathy that America has been showing towards these police shootings and even cases like Trayvon and the one locally here in Jacksonville. I mean, hell look at the Occupy Wall Street movement for another example without the racial backdrop. That movement which benefited the vast majority of America was ridiculed by the very people it stood for.

It has nothing to do with "primal instincts." Let's not dip into mentalistic terms in an argument to make a point.

Behaviorally its just a very poor way to obtain change. Changing behavior based on punishment comes with some pretty bad side effects. People will engage in avoidance behavior. They become sneakier. They become good at avoiding punishment. So instead of reinforcing the behavior we want to see, we just have people doing the same thing when we're not paying attention.

Sure, we can sit back and say, "Hey, rioting works and it's just the natural thing to happen when people are pushed too far." Or we can look at it a little bit more logically and think "Yeah...rioting works, but at what cost?"

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Right. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. I doubt there are many on GAF who are confused as to why people are rioting/looting/protesting/whatever in Baltimore.

You keep stating that violence led to change in the past (which is obviously true). So if change is what you want right now, then are you advocating for violence right now?

You've phrased your question like you already know what you want my answer to be. Obviously I am not advocating violence, I'm saying that the situation in it's current form has lead the people to this point and it's not some foreign unheard of concept that never ever worked or had it's place in history. Instead of looking at this as an emotionally charged case of "wanting the world to burn", look at this as history, it makes evaluation much easier.

 

[MBison]

Right but your argument is that the LGBTQ rights movement was defined solely by peaceful protests, yet the modern LGBTQ movement was literally galvanized by a violent protest. So both peaceful and violent action caused the result we see today in that case.

I never said the LGBTQ movement.

 

[Amir0x]

Sure, we can sit back and say, "Hey, rioting works and it's just the natural thing to happen when people are pushed too far." Or we can look at it a little bit more logically and think "Yeah...rioting works, but at what cost?"

The counter question might be:

"What is the cost of not trying to effect change through all methods available to you?" In other words, if you try for years to peacefully protest and it does not work and yet every day more of your people are killed mercilessly and no justice done, what is the cost of not trying the costly method? Is it possible that through an explosion of isolated violence that kills a few you might save more in the long term?

That's why these are very complicated subjects with endless angles. It's why understanding the nuance involved in these actions is important.

I never said the LGBTQ movement.

You're banned but I'm really confused what this meant then:

"Peaceful protest doesn't work in America? I seem to recall a lot of peaceful protesting and gatherings regarding same sex marriage and now it's legal in almost every state.

Or did I miss some LGBTQ looting?"

 

[Dude Abides]

It has nothing to do with "primal instincts." Let's not dip into mentalistic terms in an argument to make a point.

Behaviorally its just a very poor way to obtain change. Changing behavior based on punishment comes with some pretty bad side effects. People will engage in avoidance behavior. They become sneakier. They become good at avoiding punishment. So instead of reinforcing the behavior we want to see, we just have people doing the same thing when we're not paying attention.

Sure, we can sit back and say, "Hey, rioting works and it's just the natural thing to happen when people are pushed too far." Or we can look at it a little bit more logically and think "Yeah...rioting works, but at what cost?"

Psychoanalysis is not very useful for analysis of social movements and wby they do or do not succeed.

 

[Ponn]

It has nothing to do with "primal instincts." Let's not dip into mentalistic terms in an argument to make a point.

Behaviorally its just a very poor way to obtain change. Changing behavior based on punishment comes with some pretty bad side effects. People will engage in avoidance behavior. They become sneakier. They become good at avoiding punishment. So instead of reinforcing the behavior we want to see, we just have people doing the same thing when we're not paying attention.

Sure, we can sit back and say, "Hey, rioting works and it's just the natural thing to happen when people are pushed too far." Or we can look at it a little bit more logically and think "Yeah...rioting works, but at what cost?"

By "Primal" I meant resorting to using force as in a single person or a group or nation. If the current system is horribly skewed and designed to keep certain segments of a population "in check" with no incentive for the ruling class to make changes then unfortunately sitting on a log like Pooh going "think, think, think" just isn't a viable option anymore. Progressive people don't want to admit that sometimes violence, rioting or revolution IS the only option. We want to be altruistic, but in striving for that we continue to let injustice be done to others and ourselves.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

[PBalfredo]

the Rodney King riots sure did change the way the cops behave

This is a straw man because nobody argued that every violent riot works. Your arguments so far have been quite poor.

Straw man nothing. When you bring up the number of riots that worked, you open the door for the counter-point of the number of riots that didn't work.

 

[Mael]

Rioting and Protesting is pretty much how things change in France.
So yeah....

 

[IISANDERII]

(LA) When black looters got fended off by armed asian shop owners. It doesn't help the cause of rallying other minorities by attacking businesses owned by other minorities

Did I stutter? Like I said, it wasn't violent enough and it has nothing to do with looting.

 

[SeanR1221]

The counter question might be:

"What is the cost of not trying to effect change through all methods available to you?" In other words, if you try for years to peacefully protest and it does not work and yet every day more of your people are killed mercilessly and no justice done, what is the cost of not trying the costly method? Is it possible that through an explosion of isolated violence that kills a few you might save more in the long term?

That's why these are very complicated subjects with endless angles. It's why understanding the nuance involved in these actions is important.

Has every angle been exhausted? And it's not like it should be on one side. The lack of proactive strategies on the other side is apparent too.

But being proactive is difficult.

Take for instances the vast majority of problems I step into at work (full disclosure I'm a behavior analyst). Many times the kids/teens/adults have behavior problems due to ineffective reactive strategies. Our teams come in, we change the environment, we train staff to engage in appropriate proactive strategies, graph the data, make changes where necessary and we're good.

But it's easier said than done. We see a lot of cases make slow progress because everyone isn't following through, or a particular strategy isn't effective.

It becomes even more difficult when trying to alter a groups behavior.

Psychoanalysis is not very useful for analysis of social movements and wby they do or do not succeed.

This isn't psychoanalysis. It's applying the principles of behavior analysis to the situation, which is incredibly useful and successful. Everything in your environment behaviorally manipulates you.