Baltimore Protests and Riots

[Simon_Jester]

While there is a certain logic to imposing a curfew in a city that just had a round of destructive riots and looting a few days earlier, it is grossly unjust to apply excessive bail and heavy ordnance to people who civilly disobey* the curfew. Or who are present to observe it being enforced.

*Yes, as in civil disobedience

[Alyrium Denryle]

You are entitled to speak for how all minorities in the US feel?

I very much doubt all or even most minorities support violent reform. If they did, we'd be fighting a full-blown civil war right now. And we obviously aren't, thank God, as much as some extreme elements of both the Left and the Right seem to want us to be.

That is not what he meant and you god damned well know it. He is referring to the objective reality that minorities in some areas do in fact feel that way, or they would not be rioting. Ferguson--all legal recourse exhausted, none successful. Rioting was necessary to get national attention sufficient to bring in the DOJ for a recto-legal probe. Baltimore--all legal recourse exhausted (this is not the first time police have played pinball with a black person in the back of a van, it is not even the first time one has been charged though the last time was ten years ago, and the practice of playing prisoner pinball did not so much as slow down in the interim. The institution does not put a stop to the practice), democratic options nixed due to gerrymandering, there is a (accurate) fucking TV show about how fucked up Baltimore is and STILL nothing gets done. So they riot. Presumably in the hope that the DOJ recto-legal probe happens and the feds take over the police force like they did in L.A.

Pretty much, yes. I believe violence is only justified to the extent that it is necessary to protect oneself or someone else from an imminent threat. Not for retaliation or as a means of political change.

Then you are an idiot. The political system in Baltimore and elswhere is rigged. Police can and do kill and abuse innocent people there with impunity. They brag about it. What is your preferred solution to that problem? Voting does not work because of gerrymandered districts. Peaceful protest just gets them maced. Lawsuits dont bring about any sort of change.

I've already touched on this, but I would say that the revolutionaries had some legitimate grievances and achieved some great things, but that they didn't choose the optimal way of going about things. However, I also feel that the options may have been more limited due to concepts of non-violent resistance being less well-developed than they are today.

What would have been optimal? Asking their absentee king to deign to give them representation in parliament again? Not paying their taxes until such time as the british navy blockaded their ports and landed troops to be quartered inside their homes...? I do suppose the colonists could have maintained some sort of Moral Purity(tm) if they had allowed themselves to be occupied in total before revolting. Or not revolting. Afterall, you believe violence for political reform is bad, no matter how odious the condition, and provided the threat to life and limb is not "imminent".

[Napoleon the Clown]

Peaceful protests against those in power are only viable when those in power are willing to listen, rather than enacting violence on you instead. There's a strong impression among many that those in power don't care what the peaceful protestors think, and there's evidence that they want the protestors to just go away. So they meet peaceful protestors with force.


Peaceful protest cannot work if the powers that be will mace you, beat the shit out of you, then throw you in jail for over 24 hours without charging you for a crime. All because you peacefully protested the status quo, threatened their power.

[Vendetta]

A lot of the reaction to the riots from people feigning sympathy with the people in Baltimore (and before it Ferguson and LA and etc) and saying "peaceful protest is the only legitemate protest" is basically "I understand you are angry but can you please express it in a way I find easier to ignore".

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that there are several entirely legitimate criticisms of the riots, such as "stop, you're hurting your own!" As discussed here, I don't want the protestors to be ignored... but I also don't want downtown Baltimore to be an eternal poverty trap because businesses are afraid to open their doors in a place where the business can end up looking like this:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/ ... jpg&w=1484

[The Romulan Republic]

A lot of the reaction to the riots from people feigning sympathy with the people in Baltimore (and before it Ferguson and LA and etc) and saying "peaceful protest is the only legitemate protest" is basically "I understand you are angry but can you please express it in a way I find easier to ignore".

I hope you are not implying that this is my motivation. My sympathy is not feigned, nor is my belief in peaceful protest. I have been quite consistent regarding my opinion of political violence. I can cite examples from previous threads if need be.

The problem is that there are several entirely legitimate criticisms of the riots, such as "stop, you're hurting your own!" As discussed here, I don't want the protestors to be ignored... but I also don't want downtown Baltimore to be an eternal poverty trap because businesses are afraid to open their doors in a place where the business can end up looking like this:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/ ... jpg&w=1484

While its true that the rioters are hurting their own, I would not wish to imply that the violence would be fine if only it was just directed towards others. Say, police officers or politicians.

[The Romulan Republic]

That is not what he meant and you god damned well know it.

I would advise you to be extremely careful about claiming or insinuating that I am a liar. My interpretation differed from yours'.

Also, perhaps he could clarify what his meaning was rather than you presuming to speak for him.

He is referring to the objective reality that minorities in some areas do in fact feel that way, or they would not be rioting. Ferguson--all legal recourse exhausted, none successful. Rioting was necessary to get national attention sufficient to bring in the DOJ for a recto-legal probe.

Care to back up the assertion that rioting was necessary to get attention in Ferguson (which is basically an explicit attempt to justify illegal violent acts)? I seem to recall the non-violent part of the protests getting a fair amount of coverage. And if anything, I think it might have gotten more attention if the media had not been focussed on the rioting.

And if its true that the government only responded because of rioting, that's horrifying. The government should never take action to appease violent uprisings, any more than it should have backed down to Cliven fucking Bundy. The government should do its duty regardless of weather their is a riot or not, of course, but it should not take a course of action it would not otherwise have taken to appease the violent.

Baltimore--all legal recourse exhausted (this is not the first time police have played pinball with a black person in the back of a van, it is not even the first time one has been charged though the last time was ten years ago, and the practice of playing prisoner pinball did not so much as slow down in the interim. The institution does not put a stop to the practice), democratic options nixed due to gerrymandering, there is a (accurate) fucking TV show about how fucked up Baltimore is and STILL nothing gets done. So they riot. Presumably in the hope that the DOJ recto-legal probe happens and the feds take over the police force like they did in L.A.

Alternatively, the coverage of the riots drowns out coverage of the peaceful protests and reformers can be dismissed as violent hoodlums.

And its not like riots are a surefire way to bring about change. How many riots over racism have their been in America without the problem being solved?

Then you are an idiot.

For what? Having a moral principle you disagree with? Believing that imposing reform through violence is inherently unjust and the antithesis of democracy?

The political system in Baltimore and elswhere is rigged. Police can and do kill and abuse innocent people there with impunity. They brag about it. What is your preferred solution to that problem? Voting does not work because of gerrymandered districts. Peaceful protest just gets them maced. Lawsuits dont bring about any sort of change.

Change is a difficult process that takes time, but I do believe that it can be done without violence. And I would certainly question the idea that violence is any swifter or more reliable a path. How many riots have their been without the problem being resolved? Got an answer for that one?

No, rioting isn't about being effective. Its angry people wanting to hurt someone and not caring who. Forgive me if I don't find that particularly noble.

What would have been optimal? Asking their absentee king to deign to give them representation in parliament again? Not paying their taxes until such time as the british navy blockaded their ports and landed troops to be quartered inside their homes...? I do suppose the colonists could have maintained some sort of Moral Purity(tm)

I just love how you think morality is something to be mocked. It is so very revealing about your character.

I would have preferred to see non-violent forms of resistance, although I would recognize the right of the colonists to fire back when and if British soldiers opened fire on them.

That said, I recognize that it was a different time, as I said before.

if they had allowed themselves to be occupied in total before revolting. Or not revolting. Afterall, you believe violence for political reform is bad, no matter how odious the condition, and provided the threat to life and limb is not "imminent".

I do reject violence for political reform. It is the antithesis of democracy- imposing the system you want at gunpoint.

I think their is a place for violence as a last resort to defend oneself or others in extreme circumstances. I'm not convinced that that applies to the riots in Baltimore.

And I find it deeply disturbing that so many people on this board are openly defending widespread violence in the streets. It appalls me that people on the Left as well as the Right seem to increasingly believe that political violence is necessary or even desireable. It amounts to giving up on democracy and the rule of law, and if it becomes the predominant mindset in America, can only logically lead to one conclusion- civil war. If, God forbid, the day comes when it does lead to that, the blood will be, in part, on all of your hands.

Jesus Christ. When did arguing in favour of non-violence and the rule of law start to mean getting branded a moron and a racist?

I get that minorities have legitimate grievances. The history of sins against black people and so many others in American could fill a thousand books. But I do not accept that even a legitimate grievance gives you carte blanche to hurt other people or disregard their rights. Easy for me to say perhaps, but I hope that if the shoe was on the other foot I would still feel the same way.

[Grumman]

While its true that the rioters are hurting their own, I would not wish to imply that the violence would be fine if only it was just directed towards others. Say, police officers or politicians.

It is at least possible for violence directed against others to be morally justified. It's not in this case, but it would at least be less blatantly wrong than using it as an excuse to persecute innocent third parties.

[Vendetta]

The problem is that there are several entirely legitimate criticisms of the riots, such as "stop, you're hurting your own!" As discussed here, I don't want the protestors to be ignored... but I also don't want downtown Baltimore to be an eternal poverty trap because businesses are afraid to open their doors in a place where the business can end up looking like this:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/ ... jpg&w=1484

Newsflash: urban America is already an eternal poverty trap from which only an infinitessimal few ever escape. Especially for black Americans who are rigorously denied access to the economic and political life of the nation by measures including but not limited to gerrymandering districts to dilute their voting power, onerous voter registration requirements intended to disenfranchise poorer voters and specifically arising where concentrations of black votes might otherwise threaten the predominantly white establishment, criminalised by measures like the war on drugs, receive unequal treatment from the justice system and have no recourse to the mechanisms intended to correct that system, etc.

And we've seen, quite recently, just how well civil disobedience works, the Occupy movement achieved basically nothing and was met with police violence anyway.

Civil disobedience doesn't work as the only form of protest. Gandhi didn't achieve what he did because the people of India only engaged in nonviolent protest, but because he was a mediating voice set against a background of armed rebellion against an occupying power.

I hope you are not implying that this is my motivation. My sympathy is not feigned, nor is my belief in peaceful protest. I have been quite consistent regarding my opinion of political violence. I can cite examples from previous threads if need be.

If you claim sympathy but demand only actions known to be ineffectual, then why would we believe you are actually sympathetic?

Change won't come for black people in America until not changing hurts more than changing.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Me thinks that a culture of despair has been so pervasive throughout the black community that many have given up ever hoping for a better life. I think that is something few would like to admit. Couple that with the "better you than me" attitude that is also equally pervasive among Americans, because a good chunk are selfish bastards, yeah, you have everything needed to keep the despair going.

[The Romulan Republic]

While its true that the rioters are hurting their own, I would not wish to imply that the violence would be fine if only it was just directed towards others. Say, police officers or politicians.

It is at least possible for violence directed against others to be morally justified. It's not in this case, but it would at least be less blatantly wrong than using it as an excuse to persecute innocent third parties.

Agreed. I'm not completely opposed to violence except in the sense that hypothetically I think the world would be better if it never happened. I recognize that their are situations where it is justified, which I've acknowledged repeatedly in this thread. I'm just not convinced this is one of them.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is that there are several entirely legitimate criticisms of the riots, such as "stop, you're hurting your own!" As discussed here, I don't want the protestors to be ignored... but I also don't want downtown Baltimore to be an eternal poverty trap because businesses are afraid to open their doors in a place where the business can end up looking like this:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/ ... jpg&w=1484

Newsflash: urban America is already an eternal poverty trap from which only an infinitessimal few ever escape. Especially for black Americans who are rigorously denied access to the economic and political life of the nation by measures including but not limited to gerrymandering districts to dilute their voting power, onerous voter registration requirements intended to disenfranchise poorer voters and specifically arising where concentrations of black votes might otherwise threaten the predominantly white establishment, criminalised by measures like the war on drugs, receive unequal treatment from the justice system and have no recourse to the mechanisms intended to correct that system, etc.

And we've seen, quite recently, just how well civil disobedience works, the Occupy movement achieved basically nothing and was met with police violence anyway.

Civil disobedience doesn't work as the only form of protest. Gandhi didn't achieve what he did because the people of India only engaged in nonviolent protest, but because he was a mediating voice set against a background of armed rebellion against an occupying power.

I hope you are not implying that this is my motivation. My sympathy is not feigned, nor is my belief in peaceful protest. I have been quite consistent regarding my opinion of political violence. I can cite examples from previous threads if need be.

If you claim sympathy but demand only actions known to be ineffectual, then why would we believe you are actually sympathetic?

Change won't come for black people in America until not changing hurts more than changing.

One: You have no right to tell me what I think or feel, and my sympathy is not false simply because I disagree with your preferred (violently illegal) approach. The world is not divided into people who think exactly like you and people who don't care, however much such two-dimensional thinking may appeal to simple minds.

Two: demonstrate that violence is a more effective way of bringing change than non-violence or shut the fuck up. Their have been a lot of riots without America's problems over race being solved. And while I am aware that their was violence a-plenty during the civil rights movement of the sixties, who everyone remembers now, the one who had the greatest impact, is Martin Luther King.

[Dominus Atheos]

Did you just completely skip over my post?

Martin Luther King Jr

“Why is equality so assiduously avoided? Why does white America delude itself, and how does it rationalize the evil it retains?

The majority of white Americans consider themselves sincerely committed to justice for the Negro. They believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth toward a middle-class Utopia embodying racial harmony. But unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity.”

— Where Do We Go From Here, 1967

“I contend that the cry of "Black Power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years."

— 60 Minutes Interview, 1966

"But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?...It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity."

— “The Other America,” 1968

“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

— “Revolution of Values,” 1967

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

— Where Do We Go From Here, 1967

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

— Letter From a Birmingham Jail, 1963

Martin Luther King wasn't quite as opposed to violence as you seem to believe.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know the details of his personal philosophy on the subject. I don't know if he'd draw the line exactly where I would. But I do know that his methods were, primarily at least, non-violent, and I believe that he gained more sympathy and support for it.

As to the specific line you highlighted, that isn't necessarily a moral endorsement of rioting as much as an explanation of why riots happen. Could go either way, really.

[Vendetta]

I don't know the details of his personal philosophy on the subject. I don't know if he'd draw the line exactly where I would. But I do know that his methods were, primarily at least, non-violent, and I believe that he gained more sympathy and support for it.

As to the specific line you highlighted, that isn't necessarily a moral endorsement of rioting as much as an explanation of why riots happen. Could go either way, really.

Half of those quotes are specifically critical of the position you are espousing, the "moderate" position that "is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; "

You hold him on a pedestal, obviously, but people saying exactly what you said were among his enemies, and were the most pernicious among them because you cling to the idea that your approach is "reasonable".

Two: demonstrate that violence is a more effective way of bringing change than non-violence or shut the fuck up. Their have been a lot of riots without America's problems over race being solved. And while I am aware that their was violence a-plenty during the civil rights movement of the sixties, who everyone remembers now, the one who had the greatest impact, is Martin Luther King.

And he had that impact against a background of, you guessed it, riots which made the problem impossible to ignore.

Gandhi had the impact he had against a background of armed rebellion which made the problem impossible to ignore.

But it's not just race. Do you know what the single most important event in the struggle for equality for gay people in America has been? The reason that pride parades are held at the time of year they are?

The Stonewall riots.

It's a fucking universal, society won't change for the benefit of a minority until you kick its ass enough for it to notice the problem.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is very bold to claim that it is universally impossible to reform things for minorities without violence. Something I very much doubt you can back up.

What you are basically saying is that the rule of law and democracy are (in this area at least), meaningless. That violence is the only answer.

Of course, this is very much in keeping with American conservative thought, which seems to view every amendment to the Constitution except the second one as expendable.

Edit: As for Martin Luther King, I'm sure he and I disagree on many points. I used him as an example of successful non-violent protest, but I do not "...hold him on a pedestal..." as you falsely claim or think that something is right simply because he said it. He was a great man, but a mere man nonetheless. All men are fallible.

In any case, I must take exception, in the strongest possible terms, to your characterization of my position as "...more devoted to order than to justice...". That is at best a gross misunderstanding and at worst libel. I am committed to justice, but I see no justice in needless destruction, particularly the indiscriminate destruction of rioting. Likewise, I have nothing but contempt for your attempt to equate me with the worst of King's enemies (i.e. white supremacist murderers). I am fucking tired of being called or compared to a racist because I don't support rioting.

Edited the previous sentence for accuracy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Apologies for very slightly misquoting you- I left out the quotes around the word "order" and its too late to edit the post again.

Also, I am not, as you falsely characterized me, someone "...who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice..." I prefer a positive peace which is the presence of justice to an absence of peace or justice that I'm not convinced will solve anything.

In summary, Vendetta, I suspect you are a liar and a hypocrite. Fuck off and don't come back unless you're willing to have an honest debate.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It is very bold to claim that it is universally impossible to reform things for minorities without violence. Something I very much doubt you can back up.

What you are basically saying is that the rule of law and democracy are (in this area at least), meaningless. That violence is the only answer.

Well, the American Civil War happened. So what do you think?

[The Romulan Republic]

The American Civil War does not prove that violence is universally necessary for making things better for minorities. The conditions then are not the conditions through all of time and space. Regardless, I would note that the war was not fought simply for justice for black people- it was fought in response to the south seceding and then firing on a union fort.

I'd like to think that slavery could have been ended without a civil war, but the fanaticism of the south on the issue ensured that their was no way for the situation to be resolved without a lot of suffering one way or another. Regardless, once the south fired on the Union the Union was justified in firing back. And for that matter, I would have had nothing to say against a slave who killed his "owner" or one of his "owner's" enforcers in self-defence, say during an escape attempt. I could even see an argument for a slave uprising, if such a thing could have succeeded, as a sort of collective self-defence. But it has little bearing on the Baltimore riots because Baltimore today is not the Confederacy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is very bold to claim that it is universally impossible to reform things for minorities without violence. Something I very much doubt you can back up.

If may not be impossible, but is very very difficult, and it gets more difficult the more oppressed and ghettoized the minority happens to be. Take gay people in Europe vs the the US. In Europe, gay people had been inside the intellectual and political class for a long time, and they featured very strongly in the various Socialist movements throughout the 19th and early 20th century (France was a special snowflake, homosexuality got decriminalized with the Revolution, and this was extended when they invaded the Netherlands). When the communists took over Russia, they threw a party because in doing so they managed to decriminalize the existence of their homosexual communist fellow workers. Stalinism ended that in Russia, but it was done.

After that, the socialist influence (in the form of both communists and social democrats) in the governments of western europe lead to a wave of decriminalization of homosexuality. Including in Germany. Until Hitler came.

But you will notice something. Communists and Social Democrats were not wilting violets. Even in democratic countries where political violence was kept to a dull roar, they had paramilitary forces to protect their political rallies and when fascists started to crop up, they were put to use. The SPD and NSDAP fought in the streets of germany well before hitler came to power.

Nazi, American, British, and Soviet occupation ended the trend toward homosexual decriminalization and reversed it in many areas. An exhaustive history is not possible here, but suffice to say, the initial push toward the rights of LGBT people in Europe, while not advanced directly by the use of violence, WAS advanced through the use of political organizations that included tolerance toward LGBT persons in their ideology, that DID use violence.

In the United States, to put this in perspective for you:

When the concentration camps were liberated, the gay people contained therein were kept in prison. Not in the death camps, but they were kept in prison.

Now, domestically, not only was sodomy illegal, but being gay in public was illegal, and the definition of public and gay were fungible. Moreover, the names and contact information of people found being gay in public were posted in newspapers (thats right. The state doxxed gay people, with predictable consequences). This made political organization and even socialization dangerous and difficult. Early gay rights groups were secret organizations. They had to be.

This changed with Stonewall, where gay people, drag queens, and trans women rioted when the police raided the titular bar. Beating police officers with high heeled shoes. It was hilarious. And signaled and end to the enforcement of laws that criminalized being gay in public. Suddenly, the massive gay population of San Francisco (the gay population was huge because draftees and volunteers were turned away for being gay after they got there and could not exactly go home, the same was true for a few other cities but the pacific war was huge. And so the Castro was born) started using riots as a political tool in the same way, so did other cities and gay communities were able to organize politically, free from police harassment, at least to an extent that made organization possible.

Now, we reenact that first riot annually. Sure, it is also a celebration, but it is also a signal. "Step over the line again, and THIS procession or motorcycle lesbians, feather boa drag queens, muscle bears, and coke addled twinks* will run rampant in your cities. We are everywhere. Gaze upon how many potentially angry people are doing this in every population center of the country on this one day. Gaze Upon It, and Fear. You can either let us engage in the political process, or you can deal with this"

Then the Gay Agenda was able to export to other places.

*word choice selected for maximum absurd mental image value, does not reflect the composition of the actual gay community. Obviously

The same is broadly true of most of the other struggles for minority rights I can think of. Sometimes displaced in space (for some of them, violence only really needed to be used once or twice before other countries got the message).

Women: Suffragettes did occasionally engage in violence.

Trade Unionists: There were actual shooting wars

Black People: Peaceful civil rights demonstrations were contrasted against violent demonstrations. To say nothing of the civil war. In Britain, abolition was more peaceful, but by the time it picked up steam, there was no longer any economic incentive to keep it. That is the only exception I can think of off the top of my head. Ending Apartheid was also not peaceful.

Indian Independence: Same as US .

Native Americans: Shooting Wars happened, and they are still marginalized. Engaging in peaceful demonstrations had done little to improve their condition over the years. Their land is still being stolen, crimes against them go uninvestigated.

You are welcome to think of a counter example.

What you are basically saying is that the rule of law and democracy are (in this area at least), meaningless. That violence is the only answer.

The Rule of Law and Democracy dont work when the decks of both processes are stacked against a minority group.

I will deal with your other post in response to me, in a bit.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The American Civil War does not prove that violence is universally necessary for making things better for minorities. The conditions then are not the conditions through all of time and space. Regardless, I would note that the war was not fought simply for justice for black people- it was fought in response to the south seceding and then firing on a union fort.

I'd like to think that slavery could have been ended without a civil war, but the fanaticism of the south on the issue ensured that their was no way for the situation to be resolved without a lot of suffering one way or another. Regardless, once the south fired on the Union the Union was justified in firing back. And for that matter, I would have had nothing to say against a slave who killed his "owner" or one of his "owner's" enforcers in self-defence, say during an escape attempt. I could even see an argument for a slave uprising, if such a thing could have succeeded, as a sort of collective self-defence. But it has little bearing on the Baltimore riots because Baltimore today is not the Confederacy.

You are just being pointlessly naive. Let's be blunt. What the Civil War proved and what came after is that change in America has often come in fits and starts and often with no amount of blood and toiling. It must be great to be white and comfortable and pontificating from the top and scared that your own right to safety is challenged, but it is small comfort for the downtrodden.

Never mind the rebellions that happened in various parts of the Third World because colonial masters were ruthlessly reluctant to let go of power. To the extent of even setting up concentration camps.

[The Romulan Republic]

You are just being pointlessly naive.

Why? Because I disagree with you? I'd say my assessment, while not terribly in-depth, was fairly nuanced and realistic. If you'd like me to elaborate, I'd be happy to do so.

Seriously, what was it that I said that's naive? That the civil war does not prove violence is universally necessary to make things better for minorities? That the civil war was not fought just for justice for black people? That I'd like to think slavery could have ended without the war but that the south made it impossible to resolve the situation without a great deal of suffering? That the Union was justified in fighting back once the south started a war? That a slave would be justified in killing in self-defence? That Baltimore today is not the Confederacy?

That's pretty much all I said.

Let's be blunt. What the Civil War proved and what came after is that change in America has often come in fits and starts and often with no amount of blood and toiling.

True. But weather violence was necessary for reform is at least debatable, and the notion that no reform would ever have occurred without violence is manifestly false and unprovable.

It must be great to be white and comfortable and pontificating from the top and scared that your own right to safety is challenged, but it is small comfort for the downtrodden.

You want to disagree with me, fine, but do not think that you can dismiss what I am saying because I am white. An idea is not more or less valid based on the race of the person saying it. To say otherwise is, as I have said before, merely an ad hominem on a grand scale (and an especially odious one at that).

Also, while I may not be terribly oppressed, all things considered, I am nowhere near the fucking top of anything. The way you talk about me, you'd think I was some high-ranking politician or wealthy CEO. And your claim that I am motivated by fear for my safety is yet another disgusting ad hominem by someone who lacks either the wit or the ethics to debate honestly and so resorts to character assassination. Since when did this become an acceptable method of debating on this forum? Or is it considered okay to be a dishonest piece of shit because being opposed to rioting makes you an evil oppressor and therefore fair game?

And more disturbing is the fact that you seem to think I would be in the wrong to be scared of having my right to safety violated. Let me put this bluntly to you: do you believe that I deserve to be physically harmed or threatened or have my property destroyed, and that I have no right to object to such, because I am white? Consider your answer carefully, dip shit.

In any case, my fear is for the stability of America, the survival of democracy and the rule of law, and the rights of every person of every race. Whatever fear I have for myself (sitting in Canada, far from the riots), is but a part of that, and fairly inconsequential compared to the rest.

Never mind the rebellions that happened in various parts of the Third World because colonial masters were ruthlessly reluctant to let go of power. To the extent of even setting up concentration camps.

Well, for the record, I consider genocide and comparable mass killings a situation where people are entirely justified and arguably even obligated to use force to resist. That falls under "necessary for defence" without a doubt.

That has fuck all to do with Baltimore, however. Baltimore is not a third world colony with concentration camps.

[K. A. Pital]

Is Baltimore such a nice place to live that riots cannot be justified in principle?

[LaCroix]

Is Baltimore such a nice place to live that riots cannot be justified in principle?

I've heard it referenced as "A body more, Murderland" on several occasions. So...

[SAMAS]

Peaceful protests against those in power are only viable when those in power are willing to listen, rather than enacting violence on you instead. There's a strong impression among many that those in power don't care what the peaceful protestors think, and there's evidence that they want the protestors to just go away. So they meet peaceful protestors with force.


Peaceful protest cannot work if the powers that be will mace you, beat the shit out of you, then throw you in jail for over 24 hours without charging you for a crime. All because you peacefully protested the status quo, threatened their power.

Well, it can, but only if said powers have powers over them that are more compassionate. Or are at least concerned with acting(or being seen) that way.