-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"What is rioting and looting accomplishing? Anarchy changes nothing!"
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
diffusionx
Gold Member
No, it's all crap.
IISANDERII
Member
Yep. I cannot fathom the rage that's been building up through generations and culminates collectively through a large group of people. I mean every little stare, under the breath comment, to being rejected for education, jobs, careers and all the way to being robbed of your dignity and your life all added together from many families and communities. And when it all boils over, I expect much, much worse than some shops being looted and a couple cars getting burned.
way more
Member
That's seems awfully linear to assume if 50% solution doesn't work people then try the 25% solution, and it's even more narrow to combine "social change" into a binary choice between non-violent means and violent ones. We have to accept that there is only two choices and one leads directly to the other.
If this is the model you use to understand how history is made,
then your argument works.
That's seems awfully linear to assume if 50% solution doesn't work people then try the 25% solution, and it's even more narrow to combine "social change" into a binary choice between non-violent means and violent ones. We have to accept that there is only two choices and one leads directly to the other.
If this is the model you use to understand how history is made,
then your argument works.
There are not only two choices. There is also a third choice, apathy. And your assertion is wrong - one does not always lead directly to the other. Sometimes one just starts by itself, without the other choices being involved at all. And sometimes those things work before the other is even brought into the equation. Edit: Am I reading this wrong? Were you trying to say that if my argument was correct, we'd have to say one leads into the other? In any event, my argument is as follows:
So yes, obviously, everything is more complex. Yet at the end of the day, some percentage of the time violent riots work, and some percentage of the time nonviolence works, and some percentage of the time they both work in tandem.
Once again, that's my only argument - that violent riots do work sometimes, that they do impact change sometimes, that we have to accept it's a natural evolution of years of injustice never being solved, and that they absolutely do not always obfuscate the message of the people involved. The only reason we went down the road of quoting specific numerical values was to simplify things for that poster because a study was posted showing that violence worked 26% of the time, and nonviolence 53% of the time.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
There's no such thing as anarchy when people have differing levels of ordnance.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Again, Stonewall did not change policy or views on gay rights. You can argue it galvanized the creation of more gay civil rights groups, fine. I'll continue to argue more would have been created regardless because civil rights movements tend to grow in the face of oppression.
The fact remains that the VAST majority of riots don't change anything, period. Which is why I have pushed back against your thread, and the general tone in similar threads that any criticism of riots should be looked down upon. The people of Baltimore and most inner cities have every right to protest and march, and obviously violent riots are often a last resort borne of hopelessness - not greed or people wanting to burn things. I recognize that.
I did no suggest police brutality isn't an issue, nor do I need to lectured on it as a black guy from Detroit. This riot won't change a damn thing for good in Baltimore. The change that is required is largely socioeconomic, and not focused on police - but certainly police reform should also be perused. Neither will be fixed in a day or anytime soon. But progress cannot be made with people who are indifferent to the political process. These people have the power to take over much of their local governance - that doesn't just mean taking it back from corrupt white politicians, but also corrupt black politicians. And judges. And sheriffs. And school boards. There's a long list of actionable change that can happen. All of which is more effective than violent riots - most of whom do not change shit.
You've made it clear you have very little understanding of this issue yet want to rail on with the righteous indignation of a teenage RATM fan.
way more
Member
It seems like you could update your premise to include the figures brought to light in this thread instead of just saying "some percentage."
Gotdatmoney
Member
It's 1 study, he could include it but it doesn't change anything because the point is not about rioting being the "most" effective, it's about how it "can" be effective and how it comes about due to people feeling like their voices won't be heard. It could work 1% of the time and it wouldn't change the point being made. I find it nuts how this point is being actively combated. Riots have been the catalyst for change in many instances of history. The riot doesn't have to = policy change for it to play it's part in moving towards change. Even something as recent as ferguson can show that people's bottled up frustrations can lead to change. Without the events that transpired there the extreme corruption and racism running through that towns police and political systems and the blatant racism the residents received may never have been addressed.
Again, rioting is not positive but it happens for a reason and that reason should not be discredited just for the sake of some "property". How many MLK and JFK quotes have to posted just to make that extremely simple point. WE GET IT, ITS A POOR METHOD BUT WE SYMPATHIZE.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Not to mention judges and prosecutors who favor cops.
Yeah, they should loot police stations and prisons. Old school French style riots and violence. That might be a bit difficult in this age though.
They galvanized the movement and led directly to social change. Your argument is that in some fantasy alternative reality it would have happened anyway. Well, write your sci fi book about it so I can read it, it'd probably be rad. History is still history.
The problems in this country regarding minorities are socioeconomic as well. But fixing those issues would not change the problem we're dealing with right now regarding police. There's so many issues with the justice system that it needs to be torn down and completely reworked to erase the racist shit deeply engrained into its very marrow. Your idea of how soon it will be fixed or not is irrelevant to any point made in this topic. Your concept about voting is irrelevant to this discussion as well, because the reason so many people have become apathetic about voting is because that hasn't worked to fix the problems. We didn't start at 30% participation. Participation in elections have been going down every year, and that is because they have failed the people despite participation. What you're asking is that they retry this as an option. You're free to make that argument. And I'm here to tell you that it's no surprise few are willing to retry it, since the issues here are about mistrust in authority itself. If you believe authority is going to fucking kill you, why the hell would you vote again?
These riots are exactly the understandable natural results of what history in this country is. Advocate for these other methods, that's your right and I'm not even against it. This thread isn't a moral crusade in favor of violent riots.
It's a simple statement of fact: violent riots do work sometimes, they are the result of people being ignored for decades and centuries and they don't always obfuscate the message of those involved. And I'd add another basic point for the first time here: They have tried all these other methods people keep mentioning. They failed. That's why we're here.
This is the most hilarious shit I've heard in this topic so far judging by the comments to date and your historical inability to analyze even the simplest concept in politics over the years on GAF. I genuinely needed this laugh. Many thanks
uncredited male
Member
Sadly, I don't think there will be significant change until a generation or two dies out. Although, at the same time, these problems are getting more attention now than they have in decades.
Maybe a significant increase in federal control over domestic law enforcement could break up some of these self-sustaining enclaves. Or at least a change in the funding methodology. Having individuals go after the people they are supposed to be protecting to supplement budgets is just stupid. And civil forfeiture needs to not be a local thing.
Maybe a significant increase in federal control over domestic law enforcement could break up some of these self-sustaining enclaves. Or at least a change in the funding methodology. Having individuals go after the people they are supposed to be protecting to supplement budgets is just stupid. And civil forfeiture needs to not be a local thing.
Maninthemirror
Banned
looting never has helped
rioting has never helped. short term gain for long term pain.
rioting can force the change in a policy, but who will change the inner conviction of those who hate.
one can HOPE that the inner conviction changes, but how many generations will have that hate passed down because for the short term gain you were willing to bend the outer conviction but failed to change the ideas of the person who hates?
the one man who did believing in a semblance of non-violence was killed by a racist individual because many individuals like him STILL existed because the job of healing hearts was NOT done. when the segment of society through their inner conviction stops hating because of the ideals brought forth by civility and and examples of a higher society set forth by those who they hate, then you get a society where there is no need to violently change policy because the haters will change it after they remove hate from within themselves and yearn to live among those of a different color rather than compromise into thinking they can
rioting has never helped. short term gain for long term pain.
rioting can force the change in a policy, but who will change the inner conviction of those who hate.
one can HOPE that the inner conviction changes, but how many generations will have that hate passed down because for the short term gain you were willing to bend the outer conviction but failed to change the ideas of the person who hates?
the one man who did believing in a semblance of non-violence was killed by a racist individual because many individuals like him STILL existed because the job of healing hearts was NOT done. when the segment of society through their inner conviction stops hating because of the ideals brought forth by civility and and examples of a higher society set forth by those who they hate, then you get a society where there is no need to violently change policy because the haters will change it after they remove hate from within themselves and yearn to live among those of a different color rather than compromise into thinking they can
I would add that, in this case, it's incredibly difficult to figure out who the enemy is.
Because no one (or virtually no one) is out there shouting the N word any longer, it's not clear or direct or obvious who the bad guys are. It must be particularly and especially infuriating to see widespread, systemic racism, but have no one to point the finger towards.
These are not just the riots of the unheard: these are an unheard victim fighting an unseen enemy.
This isn't true at all and you've chosen to ignore the topic in favor for a gut emotional reaction. If you're going to make an argument that rioting has never helped and is only "short term gain", then you have to prove it in the face of the evidence presented.
So, until you produce evidence that somehow changes history, you're simply wrong. Completely, indisputably wrong.
As an aside, your last point - about bringing ideals "civilly" so that the haters will eventually change and remove hate from themselves - is so naive I don't even know where to begin. That's like the logic of a child hippie or some shit. That has never been true of humanity and never will be true. SOME people will change, but there will always be a fuck ton of people that don't. That's why they need to be forced out of being allowed to endorse their hate through systematic changes which occur sometimes through nonviolence and sometimes through violence and sometimes through a combination of both.
Opiate said:
That's a good point. The racism that exists today is in some ways far more insidious that what was in the past. It's very difficult not to get frustrated in such an environment, because you know it exists but you can't always necessarily pinpoint it.
Maninthemirror
Banned
well you have to answer the question, whose civil rights ideals changed history more, MLK or Malcom X to see which side of the argument you fall in then.
My argument isn't that one works more than the other. I know which one works more often, that's not the point of this topic. Please read the thread and try to actually respond to the arguments being made.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Too bad they're not around to ask what they think
Maninthemirror
Banned
isnt this discussion if certain actions result in things getting done ? this was my purpose of asking the question, MLK jr believed in looting and rioting being the wrong way to get the result while Malcom X was in favor of 'any means necessary'.
Yes, yes. But have you tried breaking some windows?
Another straw man. And another example of a profound misunderstanding of arguments being made. Kiiinda sad at this point. You're free to read the latest response to your nonsense and actually try to respond though.
Maninthemirror said:
The reason this topic exists is because when violent riots erupt, people such as yourself parade into those discussions and make claims about how violent riots do not work and that they obscure the message of the protesters involved. The argument I've made is simply that no, violent riots do sometimes work. And no, the messages of those involved are not always obscured. And violent riots as they are occurring now are a direct result of centuries of injustice on this subject.
That's the only argument. You keep trying to say "riots never work and it's always short term gain." That's demonstrably untrue. If you want to modify the point about it being that one works better than the other, you'll find no objections to me. But according to the studies, nonviolence does fail almost half of the time. In that case, there is no surprise people then hunt for alternatives and that sometimes they land on violence.
Gotdatmoney
Member
You've been spouting this same thing, it's not what anyone is advocating. It's just annoying really. Who is saying go to violence?
way more
Member
The point being made is
Right? I don't why people seek to deny it. It's so insubstantial there is nothing to dispute.
What is being advocated here? Sometimes things are like this and sometimes they are not.
And that violent protests do not ALWAYS obscure the message of those involved. And that we have to understand the reasons people arrive at violent protests, else we'll never stop them.
And yet every time there is a topic about riots, this argument is presented. It was because Maninthemirror made such a comment in the Baltimore riot thread that I decided to make the topic. It seems simple, but it always happens
Edit: I'm going to bed. Fascinating discussion guys.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
You can keep patting yourselves on the back for being "clever" and ignoring history, or you can address the ideas in the OP
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Not really, not when campaigns are fueled by Money, and the popular vote is meaningless.
It's not an either or scenario though. Both believed in non-violence and both also had mixed views on the use of force in protesting.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Great OP amir0x.
While I can completely and absolutely understand why people get angry at looters and rioters, I hate it that, too often, 'explanations' are considered 'excuses', and all conversation about why this happened in the first place - what are the root social causes of this - gets shut down /terriblywrittensentence
While I can completely and absolutely understand why people get angry at looters and rioters, I hate it that, too often, 'explanations' are considered 'excuses', and all conversation about why this happened in the first place - what are the root social causes of this - gets shut down /terriblywrittensentence
And that violent protests do not ALWAYS obscure the message of those involved. And that we have to understand the reasons people arrive at violent protests, else we'll never stop them.
And yet every time there is a topic about riots, this argument is presented. It was because Maninthemirror made such a comment in the Baltimore riot thread that I decided to make the topic. It seems simple, but it always happens
So this entire topic is just so you can look at people saying "riots don't work" and interpreting it in absolute terms rather than shorthand for it being decidedly non-optional, just so you can say "ACTUALLY, they do work 26% of the time," and then reinforce it with a bunch of dubious examples of violence where their success is better credited to the non-violent movements that came afterwards?
Is that the whole point? Overly verbose semantics?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Again, no policy changes occurred after Stonewall.
Voting is not irrelevant to the issue of reforming the justice system. How do you expect these reforms you seek to come about? By pure magic? Local elections have the most impact on a person's daily life yet have some of the lowest voter participation rates in this country. That's a major problem, especially in inner cities. We're talking about electing officials and positions with direct ties to justice in the community, from judges to sheriffs.
Of what worth is that statement? Violent riots work...less than 30% of the time? Congratulations. Here's a better way of saying it: violent riots don't work in a vast majority of cases. Period. We agree that they are often an expression of hopelessness and anger, a last resort. But that doesn't mean they're effective - they aren't.
Your last point is also inaccurate. These cities have largely been exploited by racist policies such as redlining, or white flight, or highways, etc for decades. They have also been exploited by corrupt black politicians who were more than happy to sell out their cities. A passive, uninformed electorate is a dangerous thing. I can look at Detroit and point to a variety of issues black people had no control over on the state level. But on the city level it's not hard to find plenty of examples of corrupt local politicians stealing from the people and getting away with it. And now we are where we are.
The issue isn't that inner city people stopped participating in the political process because it failed them. It's that it failed them because they stopped participating in the political process. You cannot sit back and let people rob you because you know their parents, or share the same pastor, etc. I'm not blaming everything on this obviously.
I think the idea being expressed here can be adequately distilled by this deliberately simplified anecdote:
Imagine a person who is part of a caste system, and spends a huge portion of his life permanently subjugated by those with power. He spends a significant portion of his life homeless and poor, and finds himself frequently unable to feed his family (let's say he has one kid). The pressure and frustration of inequity, injustice and hunger finally builds until he kicks down the door of one of his oppressors and steals food and valuables.
Is his behavior okay? No, probably not. But most of us understand, and think it's valuable to look at why a person is so desperate and frustrated in the first place in addition to condemning their behavior. What is such a person supposed to do, exactly? Playing the game "fair and square" doesn't work when the game is already rigged against him.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
OP's post is full of half analysis
Stone-Wall was symbolic, it wasn't the riot/violence itself that galvanized people, it was the rare sight and sound in these days of seeing LGBT people standing up for justice, seeing that it was possible. It(rioting) certainly wasn't repeated over n over, LGBT community organized to affect their political and social standing in this country.
Im not gonna comment on the other examples posted cuz I dunno enough about them(though from what I remember Blair Mountain was largely the effect of work stoppage and strikes). Riots "work" Accidentally, and very Very VERY rarely.
What angers me is the us NOT LEARNING the rule of the game, not evolving with it. We're not accompanying our protest and anger with political strength building. Right now my Facebook is full of "Fuck politicians!, Revolution" random MLK quotes.. pics of white people rioting after sport stuff..."don't judge them"... We're repeating a failed tactic, stop excusing it.
Stone-Wall was symbolic, it wasn't the riot/violence itself that galvanized people, it was the rare sight and sound in these days of seeing LGBT people standing up for justice, seeing that it was possible. It(rioting) certainly wasn't repeated over n over, LGBT community organized to affect their political and social standing in this country.
Im not gonna comment on the other examples posted cuz I dunno enough about them(though from what I remember Blair Mountain was largely the effect of work stoppage and strikes). Riots "work" Accidentally, and very Very VERY rarely.
What angers me is the us NOT LEARNING the rule of the game, not evolving with it. We're not accompanying our protest and anger with political strength building. Right now my Facebook is full of "Fuck politicians!, Revolution" random MLK quotes.. pics of white people rioting after sport stuff..."don't judge them"... We're repeating a failed tactic, stop excusing it.
EdibleKnife
Member
An opinion piece from Ta-Nehisi Coates pointedly getting at the heart of what Amir0x and many others are getting at:
Nonviolence as Compliance
Nonviolence as Compliance
Maninthemirror
Banned
And the gist is violence is a temporary fix which brings bigger pain . Even the family of the man who died are demanding violence stop because it ultimately achieves nothing but publicity which brews more anger rather than publicity which results in change. I think all movements result in both violence and non violence but it wrong to assume it is the violence which brought out majority of the change and I can argue it is violence which slowed down change ultimately which is bound to happen through non violence means.
One step forward, 5 steps back
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
People don't riot because of statistical probability. They riot because they're fucking pissed at an injustice, real or perceived, and create their own outlet for it. You can condemn specific actors in such dramas while also recognizing that the genre, itself, is inevitable, and trying to structure society in such a way as to minimize the number of releases within it.
Whenever somebody brings up that riots are bad in the case of black individuals, I always picture a certain tumblr post that mentions how masses of white people would riot over something as simple as a sports team losing. While I'm not condoning violence, noone should be surprised that Blacks are tired of being slaughtered and are lashing out at the powers that be because they haven't done their job in protecting us. So if a bunch of white dudes can riot and flip a police car over a game of football, you damn well better believe blacks will riot when they've been abused for so long.
Here's a link to that post actually:
http://iwriteaboutfeminism.tumblr.com/post/103594174088/yet-where-was-the-national-guard
The function of violence is shock. Some people will seriously never consider your point until they see the world around them crumbling.
Here's a link to that post actually:
http://iwriteaboutfeminism.tumblr.com/post/103594174088/yet-where-was-the-national-guard
The function of violence is shock. Some people will seriously never consider your point until they see the world around them crumbling.
I guess the real trick is correctly identifying the oppressors, which is a lot more difficult in a nation with a more informal caste system and less overt racism. And not everyone seems to agree on who to blame.
I don't condone rioting/destruction at all but if you don't talk about certain issues and/or cities until there's a riot then why can't you (also) understand why some people riot?
Many don't talk about issues that have been going on for a long time on thier social media feeds until they see videos and pictures of riots but yet some of the same people don't understand why people riot. I don't get it at all.
Many don't talk about issues that have been going on for a long time on thier social media feeds until they see videos and pictures of riots but yet some of the same people don't understand why people riot. I don't get it at all.
I don't agree with this. Personally I think rioting and destruction of property, along with everything else that comes with it, is actually far more likely to make waves than ordinary non violent protests. You look at protests in the UK against the Iraq war (the largest in our history), student fees etc, and because they were mostly non violent, the government essentially ignored people. Then look at France and the riots that stemmed from the retirement age increase, which led to mass protests and pure carnage of public property, and the government very quickly caved in.
The sad fact is, governments often care more for monetary losses than they do ordinary vocal out cry, that is the massive cost of repair, damage to economy, buildings, infrastructure, property valuation, businesses, consumer trust, political ramifications and everything else. It may look like a temporary few steps back, but in the grand scheme I don't think it is. If more of the country was united in rioting, I personally think change would come a lot sooner. The states simply cannot afford the cost of dealing with it in any widespread fashion.
The establishment is to blame, as is everyone who propagates it. So, essentially, everyone is to blame, which means no one is to blame.
It's best to not think of it in terms of blame and punishment, and more in terms of correcting injustice and making our country whole. Ensuring that all people can prosper, and that maximum opportunity is afforded. Short term, that means a lot of wealth must be freed up or "redistributed." A lot of rights must be better protected, and in some cases, established for certain citizens.
Lil'DigiOp
Member
The American Revolution was a large scale riot in essence. We wouldn't even have a GAF to have this discussion if Colonials didn't riot against the British.
Talk about hypocrisy
Talk about hypocrisy
- Status