Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 317: Jacob Blake

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/30/us/portland-protest-fatal-shooting/index.html

---

He blocked me too instead of just actually answering the question, so whatev

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

You sort of earned it

I mean I guess I was probably meaner than I needed to be, but I stand by everything I said

---

I don't really know what kind of response he was expecting when his posts kept being

"It's about feeling liberated by STICKING IT TO THE EVIL 'JOB CREATORS' and you can't do anything without violence YOU NEVER COULD, FUCK CORPORATIONS"

when the question was a simple "How does burning down a Target help these specific issues"

EDIT: Like, yeah, fuck Target. But that's a different issue all together and burning down a store isn't going to even help that issue let alone this one.

---

Whoever gentleman gamer is, he appears to harbor very sick ideas. Anyone who gets joys out of committing crimes and felonies are likely sociopaths.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I don't understand the self-defense claims at all. "They chased him down!"

Yes. Yes they did.

Because he had already shot somebody.

https://youtu.be/NSU9ZvnudFE

CE had that posted. I didn't watch it, but a few people in the topic said it changed their opinion on whether it was self defense or not.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Whoever gentleman gamer is, he appears to harbor very sick ideas. Anyone who gets joys out of committing crimes and felonies are likely sociopaths.

I don't think he's a sociopath, he just has his head up his own ass

---

Man shot in Portland was wearing shirt of group patriotic prayer or some shit. Appears to be a trump supporter. No idea why they thought driving through Portland in their cruise was a smart idea.

---

Seems opinion is turning against Democrats lately with the relief bill.

A lot of people pointing to gop raises offer to 1.3 trillion in hopes to negotiate a bill, Democrats say they won't budge on 2.2 trillion and 2.2 trillion at least or nothing.

---

I'll say my piece: I don't give one single fuck about the Target burning down, and the discussion around it is consistently framed in completely the wrong way. It is always framed as though it is a matter of poor tactics, generally assumed to be from either a failing of moral duty, or from an inability to check one's rage, or from some sort of misunderstanding about how to achieve revolution. As if oh, these silly poor people, if only they could understand that burning the Target down isn't helping the situation. But it is not a matter of tactics. This was never a question of "should we, or should we not, burn down the Target," like they held a vote on this shit.This situation has far escalated past the ability for tactics to even come into play. This is a matter of inevitability, stemming from the breach of the social contract by those in power.

People who are powerless cannot be held responsible for not upholding the social contract when those in power have ignored it - it is not a social contract that they have ever agreed to, and they can only be expected to pay any attention to it so long as the power are upholding their end of the bargain in keeping the peace. If the powers that be can ignore it, then you can't go all surprised-Pikachu face when suddenly, some shit is on fire. This chain of events all starts with the people in power - in this case, the Minneapolis Police Department. By summarily executing citizens in the streets, by failing to hold their own accountable for misdeeds, and for attempting to violently put down peaceful protests, the MPD has completely failed to keep the peace; they are the ones responsible for Minneapolis burning, full stop. It cannot be the responsibility of the people they are oppressing to ensure that the city does not burn.

Nobody regards it as ideal for places of commerce to be burning down, and nobody considers it ideal for people to be dying as a result, but it is the inevitable consequence of civil unrest, and civil unrest is what you get when people have nothing left to lose. Frankly, the concern trolling about Target in particular is embarrassing to me - we should all be completely indifferent to whether or not the Target is standing, unless anyone thinks that a megacorporation like them that does little to serve its community and prefers to line its own pockets is an unquestioned moral good. If it is true that they have given great amounts of funding to the police, then they too take ownership of their own store being burnt down, and so be it. I would prefer to live in a world when Target and the community can co-exist peacefully, but we do not live in that world, and no amount of finger-wagging at vague "rioters" and "looters" is going to change a damn thing.

We get it, Paratroopa. When people commit crimes that are supposedly for causes you support, it is all good. When not, they are crimes again.

Burning down places because you are upset is no different than burning down abortion clinics because you are upset about abortions.

You are handwaving crime as acceptable and inevitable based on your own sliding scale of morality and opinion. The problem with that thinking is that everyone has their own sliding scales and opinions and where they draw the line and you do are going to be all over the place. This is why our justice system is letter of the law and not based on what your morality says the law should be.

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

I'll say my piece: I don't give one single fuck about the Target burning down, and the discussion around it is consistently framed in completely the wrong way. It is always framed as though it is a matter of poor tactics, generally assumed to be from either a failing of moral duty, or from an inability to check one's rage, or from some sort of misunderstanding about how to achieve revolution. As if oh, these silly poor people, if only they could understand that burning the Target down isn't helping the situation. But it is not a matter of tactics. This was never a question of "should we, or should we not, burn down the Target," like they held a vote on this shit.This situation has far escalated past the ability for tactics to even come into play. This is a matter of inevitability, stemming from the breach of the social contract by those in power.

People who are powerless cannot be held responsible for not upholding the social contract when those in power have ignored it - it is not a social contract that they have ever agreed to, and they can only be expected to pay any attention to it so long as the power are upholding their end of the bargain in keeping the peace. If the powers that be can ignore it, then you can't go all surprised-Pikachu face when suddenly, some shit is on fire. This chain of events all starts with the people in power - in this case, the Minneapolis Police Department. By summarily executing citizens in the streets, by failing to hold their own accountable for misdeeds, and for attempting to violently put down peaceful protests, the MPD has completely failed to keep the peace; they are the ones responsible for Minneapolis burning, full stop. It cannot be the responsibility of the people they are oppressing to ensure that the city does not burn.

Nobody regards it as ideal for places of commerce to be burning down, and nobody considers it ideal for people to be dying as a result, but it is the inevitable consequence of civil unrest, and civil unrest is what you get when people have nothing left to lose. Frankly, the concern trolling about Target in particular is embarrassing to me - we should all be completely indifferent to whether or not the Target is standing, unless anyone thinks that a megacorporation like them that does little to serve its community and prefers to line its own pockets is an unquestioned moral good. If it is true that they have given great amounts of funding to the police, then they too take ownership of their own store being burnt down, and so be it. I would prefer to live in a world when Target and the community can co-exist peacefully, but we do not live in that world, and no amount of finger-wagging at vague "rioters" and "looters" is going to change a damn thing.

I'm not saying we should be surprised that it's happening (and I'm not saying that this is "the real problem" or whatever like the right is). What I'm calling out is the rationalization that it's morally acceptable. I've heard this argument about the social contract before, and I completely disagree with the idea that it in any way justifies violence. There is a notion of morality completely separate from any notion of reciprocity; harming people is wrong, whether they're "good' people or not (in fact, this brings to mind the common genre of joke about somebody being raped in prison, which I've always found super disgusting). That there's no logical disconnect to extending the social contract argument from property damage to bodily harm (or even rape or murder) should really make one question the validity of it.

---

Maybe the leaders of this country should give a fuck about them if they don't want bad things to happen.

I agree 100% about the social contract, otherwise what is there?

I dont want violence but I get how we got here and how this isn't ending nicely as long as those in power don't care

---

My question would be where does this social contract bit end? Are you responsible if your actions lead to the harm or death of an innocent person? Are the people harmed by your actions responsible if they retaliate against you? Are you then free to retaliate back?

---

StealThisSheen posted...

He blocked me too instead of just actually answering the question, so whatev

his answer was "the article explains how burning down a target helps these issues."

you can argue that his answer sucked but to say "he didn't answer the question" is false.

---

Oh another thing I didn't bring up at the time since I personally don't think it changes the morality of things, but other since people keep focusing on Target as being a target (no pun intended) specifically undeserving of our sympathy: gentleman gamer was the one who switched the argument to focus on a particular big corporation, but rioters/looters are attacking plenty of small businesses as well.

---

Do most Americans even care about the pandemic? At least here in Ireland it feels like things are practically back to normal, and with major movie releases coming again I'm getting the feeling many Americans might just be moseying on about their lives with little concern for the virus.

Just asking since this will help me understand Trump's election chances.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/30/world/middleeast/ap-ml-qatar.html?partner=IFTTT

Kafala is "dismantled", which is good
Obv needs to be enforced tho

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Do most Americans even care about the pandemic? At least here in Ireland it feels like things are practically back to normal, and with major movie releases coming again I'm getting the feeling many Americans might just be moseying on about their lives with little concern for the virus.

Yes, most people absolutely care. Life is not "back to normal" in the US at all (though some people are still in denial about the gravity of the threat). Iirc polling has ~1/3 of the country currently saying it's the most important issue in the election (a plurality), and Trump's disapproval on covid is over 60%.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Target as being a target (no pun intended)

Sounds like they were asking for it
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yes, most people absolutely care. Life is not "back to normal" in the US at all (though some people are still in denial about the gravity of the threat). Iirc polling has ~1/3 of the country currently saying it's the most important issue in the election (a plurality), and Trump's disapproval on covid is over 60%.

Just panicking because I have no respect for the collective intelligence of Americans.

Truth be told, I do think most of the country isn't completely dumb and that the only reason Trump even got elected was because a ton of people decided at the last second to prevent a Hillary Clinton presidency at all costs. No way Biden has the same amount of baggage she had. But you know what they say about underestimating the public's intelligence.

Here in Ireland there are ~100-200 new cases reported each day, presumably because of people taking it too easy.

---

In all fairness he did totally answer the question about what burning down Target accomplishes - it worked! We SAW it work. The city voted to disband the police force. You are all pondering the deeper meaning and strategic significance of what burning down Target represents and it doesn't fucking matter because it accomplished the goal!

In reality it probably doesn't even matter who gets hurt and what burns down. When things get to this point, where they are so bad and people are so desperate they are lashing out at anything they can, the main purpose is to get people with power to realize "oh shit things are bad and we need to do something before they get worse."

And as for this specific target, I could never tell if this was rationalization after the event or not, but it was stated that this was one that had been trying out new store policing measures in an underprivileged community, so

---

Corrik7 posted...

Whoever gentleman gamer is, he appears to harbor very sick ideas. Anyone who gets joys out of committing crimes and felonies are likely sociopaths.

So youre gonna tell me the founding fathers werent happy when they illegally violently rose up against their oppressors and founded our country.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

So youre gonna tell me the founding fathers werent happy when they illegally violently rose up against their oppressors and founded our country.

It's really funny how 'patriotic' conservatives seem like they would also be the people who were royalists during the revolution

---

Corrik has already said that the founding fathers committed treason, which is accurate. Under British law of the time, there is little question they were guilty.

---

But I'm trying to see if he thinks that they're sociopaths or not. For being happy that they accomplished their goals through treason.

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm not saying we should be surprised that it's happening (and I'm not saying that this is "the real problem" or whatever like the right is). What I'm calling out is the rationalization that it's morally acceptable. I've heard this argument about the social contract before, and I completely disagree with the idea that it in any way justifies violence. There is a notion of morality completely separate from any notion of reciprocity; harming people is wrong, whether they're "good' people or not (in fact, this brings to mind the common genre of joke about somebody being raped in prison, which I've always found super disgusting). That there's no logical disconnect to extending the social contract argument from property damage to bodily harm (or even rape or murder) should really make one question the validity of it.

I find that people who care more about property damage than about the lives of black people murdered by police, aren't particularly moral. But that's just me.

---

On this line of thought remember that little spot of looting during the Revolutionary war that is deemed so patriotic that a wing of the GOP named themselves after it?

But naw, fuck that, the founding fathers should have just held hands and sung kumbaya and hoped the bullies stopped punching them

Tyranny only understands violence, and while this line of action may not always be moral, sometimes it is the only recorse left for a oppressed people.

---

Peaceful protests have never worked in the history of the world and it's insane that it's what they teach kids in school. It's because they want them to grow up thinking that if they're just super peaceful and pathetic maybe the oppressors will start feeling bad and take pity on them. The biggest lie the ruling class ever got the people to believe is that they give one fart about you. They teach Gandhi and MLKJr like they didn't beat and imprison those guys for their entire life. But then they have to deal with the violent side of things. They tortured the flip out of Gandhi but then they had to deal with that Muslim revolutionary who was broadly on the same goals page and suddenly they're like "Oh it was Gandhi that worked! Yup, we're totally convinced by Gandhi after thirty years of beating the shit out of him."

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

In all fairness he did totally answer the question about what burning down Target accomplishes - it worked! We SAW it work. The city voted to disband the police force. You are all pondering the deeper meaning and strategic significance of what burning down Target represents and it doesn't fucking matter because it accomplished the goal!

The reason I have trouble with this answer is because it also didnt work in other places, and well it worked so who cares can become a very broad line of thought.

If Im having a dispute over a property line with my neighbor, and I kill him, I can say You know, who really cares, it worked, when there are obviously much, much better ways to go about it.

Now, Im not necessarily saying there are better ways to go about this or not. I dont have the answers, I dont think anyone has all the answers. I just dont think well, it worked, is necessarily a great reason.

EDIT: Ultimately, I just personally struggle with the who cares who gets hurt along the way mindset, because how far does that go?

---

Samurai7 posted...

It's really funny how 'patriotic' conservatives seem like they would also be the people who were royalists during the revolution

The origins of conservatism literally are founded in preserving monarchy

HashtagSEP posted...

EDIT: Ultimately, I just personally struggle with the who cares who gets hurt along the way mindset, because how far does that go?

What about the "who cares who has been hurt already" mindset which has been the status quo so far for years and you have people throwing themselves over each other to preserve that. We see that in action already. It's not a hypothetical like your scenario.

In your first "example" the government would be the man who kills the other man for his property (as the government has done many times) and the protesters would be the outraged people who come in and burn the place to the ground after and then you'd have Johnny B. Bootlicker on the internet saying "well he was maybe wrong but the retaliation was definitely wrong!"

HashtagSEP posted...

The reason I have trouble with this answer is because it also didnt work in other places, and well it worked so who cares can become a very broad line of thought.

If Im having a dispute over a property line with my neighbor, and I kill him, I can say You know, who really cares, it worked, when there are obviously much, much better ways to go about it.

Now, Im not necessarily saying there are better ways to go about this or not. I dont have the answers, I dont think anyone has all the answers. I just dont think well, it worked, is necessarily a great reason.

Obviously "the ends justify the means" is a shitty mindset to have in broad strokes, and I'd agree with that! But this is a more specific situation. It's a disagreement over whether property damage is a justified method to achieve social change, and I'd say yes at least for this situation. I'd also question your assessment that there are "much better" ways to go about it because are there? Public officials (yes, even liberal ones) have widely resisted meaningful reforms at every turn. Democracy isn't foolproof here, and this problem is so big that there are very few alternative solutions.

Alternatively to "democracy isn't foolproof," democracy also requires public pressure to function properly and this is what it tends to look like

---

The people up in arms over Target are being silly when Target itself said yo like, we dont LOVE our stores getting down, but we totally understand how and why it happened and will try to do better.

It worked.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

EDIT: Ultimately, I just personally struggle with the who cares who gets hurt along the way mindset, because how far does that go?

Got in before the edit but the answer to "how far does that go" is "violent revolution," which has happened numerous times throughout history. Including the founding of the country.

The purpose of rioting, striking and focusing on property/financial damage is to force the hand of powers to remedy things before it gets to that point.

---

PrinceKaro posted...

Tyranny only understands violence, and while this line of action may not always be moral, sometimes it is the only recorse left for a oppressed people.

See this is where the argument falls apart for the "omg stop rioting you guys!!1" people. Nobody wants to believe they are or support the bad guys; tyrants are inherently the bad guys; therefore claims of tyranny must be false; therefore there's no oppression going on; therefore the rioting is unjustified.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Obviously "the ends justify the means" is a shitty mindset to have in broad strokes, and I'd agree with that! But this is a more specific situation. It's a disagreement over whether property damage is a justified method to achieve social change,

I think this is the disconnect, because the property damage isnt the issue at the core of the debate. The issue is the innocent people being harmed in the process. If somebody relies on their job to feed their kids and suddenly they dont have a job because their place of work got burned down, should they just have to accept that? If somebody gets caught in the fire and dies, which apparently happened in a pawn shop, should their family accept that? Is that acceptable? Is it more acceptable in a city where it may have lead to a change than in a city it didnt?

Im not necessarily trying to argue one way or the other. My issue specifically is that I, personally, struggle to accept the ends justify the means, tactics dont matter, and who cares who got hurt, it worked when its people effectively taking agency over the lives of innocent people that have nothing to do with it. Which, yes, is the problem at the top to begin with, its a mess, I get that.

---

i don't have all the answers either but calling gentlemangamer a "bad person" and "wannabe terrorist" over this debate seems a bit much tbqh. i didn't think his position was that unreasonable.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

I think this is the disconnect, because the property damage isnt the issue at the core of the debate. The issue is the innocent people being harmed in the process. If somebody relies on their job to feed their kids and suddenly they dont have a job because their place of work got burned down, should they just have to accept that? If somebody gets caught in the fire and dies, which apparently happened in a pawn shop, should their family accept that? Is that acceptable? Is it more acceptable in a city where it may have lead to a change than in a city it didnt?

If an innocent black man is murdered by the police, should his family just have to accept that?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I've heard this argument about the social contract before, and I completely disagree with the idea that it in any way justifies violence. There is a notion of morality completely separate from any notion of reciprocity; harming people is wrong, whether they're "good' people or not

I had typed out a long response to this, but in the interest of not cluttering up the topic more I'll just say this:

No. When peace fails to change tyranny, as it always will, violence is the only answer, and is a moral answer.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

I think this is the disconnect, because the property damage isnt the issue at the core of the debate. The issue is the innocent people being harmed in the process. If somebody relies on their job to feed their kids and suddenly they dont have a job because their place of work got burned down, should they just have to accept that? If somebody gets caught in the fire and dies, which apparently happened in a pawn shop, should their family accept that? Is that acceptable? Is it more acceptable in a city where it may have lead to a change than in a city it didnt?

Im not necessarily trying to argue one way or the other. My issue specifically is that I, personally, struggle to accept the ends justify the means, tactics dont matter, and who cares who got hurt, it worked when its people effectively taking agency over the lives of innocent people that have nothing to do with it. Which, yes, is the problem at the top to begin with, its a mess, I get that.

Kinda disorganized response but a few points these make me think of.

1) You get that the protests are over a similar, more violent, permanent denial of agency and we agree on that and can start there.

2) I would say violence against persons is far worse than violence against property and finances. You can't really equate them other than saying sometimes one can lead to the other. If you disagree with this, why is that?

3) For a thought experiment, how would you solve the problem of the Target employees who lost their jobs? Here is my answer: you have to put aside who is "responsible" for the arson - legal proceedings against the protestors could take years if it is even solved, and who knows if the people involved could even cover financial costs. So that shit is useless. But if Target is a moral company that responsibly provides for its workers, isnt the onus on them to provide severance, relocation, or whatever other benefits its affected employs need? As long as they have the means (they do).

edit: shit this posted before I was done. Fuck mobile. Hold up

---

4) So now we are at the point where you mentional smaller local community businesses. I think everyone is on the same page that it sucks when there is collateral damage, ESPECIALLY if someone dies. Insurance and the legal system can only do so much here. If those fail (and I think they tend to as mentioned) I would say that yeah, the onus is on the community to help those people. In fact they should help the Target employees too, it's just that as Target clearly has power they have an even higher moral obligation.

5) This is why it is important to critically engage with the abolish and defund movements because the entire conceit relies on increasing social safety net programs that would prevent the kind of financial downfalls people wring their hands over when this stuff happens. This is all interconnected, it isn't just about fuck the police.

---

Why are so many Americans fine with their country becoming a police state?

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

If an innocent black man is murdered by the police, should his family just have to accept that?

No, not at all. But thats why, to me, saying tactics dont matter seems silly. I think tactics should matter. I think its better to target the people that are actually the problem than to just sow random chaos and violence that might just create more victims.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i don't have all the answers either but calling gentlemangamer a "bad person" and "wannabe terrorist" over this debate seems a bit much tbqh. i didn't think his position was that unreasonable.

That was a bit mean, yes, but I did that in reaction to him deviating the discussion into what was nearly a manifesto about how big corporations are evil and need to be destroyed and stuff that really isn't the point of the discussion at all. It started to come off like he was basically speaking of taking advantage of the racial injustice to destroy things for ulterior motives.

---

Steve Scalise posted manipulated video of Ady Barkan interview with Joe Biden. Is there no low Republicans won't sink to?

---

Dancedreamer posted...

I find that people who care more about property damage than about the lives of black people murdered by police, aren't particularly moral. But that's just me.

This is a complete misrepresentation of my position. People being murdered is obviously worse than property damage. The latter, however, is still wrong, and I completely reject the notion that the property damage opposes the murder.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

This is a complete misrepresentation of my position. People being murdered is obviously worse than property damage. The latter, however, is still wrong, and I completely reject the notion that the property damage opposes the murder.

This reminds me of when Kaepernick knelt and when he was asked why he was kneeling he said why only for everyone ELSE to tell him that he's wrong about his OWN motivation for doing something.

---

For what it's worth, I fully support targeting places like police stations, city halls, and so on because those are the people that are actually at the root of the problem.

I just am not in favor of the random destruction of businesses and the like since it feels like it just creates more victims.

---

I think its just concern trolling when some conservative is wringing their hands over how protestors with no training should only destroy certain targets because thatll create more victims but have no absolutely no awareness when they support the military 100% no matter how many innocent people and non-military property they burn.