Baltimore Protests and Riots

[K. A. Pital]

I am not saying 'the people as a whole' will not support reform, and quite possibly because at no point in history, not ever, have the 'people as a whole' had a unified opinion on anything. People can support, the majority of them anyway, reform without the threat of violence, and they often do (silent majority) - it is much, much worse if they do not, if they do not or many do not, the confrontation is often much more violent.

I am pretty sure the majority of people in the US would like to see a police reform, considering the many cases of police brutality and deaths and injuries caused by it.

But where is the result of this widespread and generally benign attitude?

[The Romulan Republic]

Then the problem is mobilizing latent support. Violence runs the risk of alienating people who otherwise would have supported you (in addition to the obvious hurting people).

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that a lot of people feel that nothing effective can be accomplished. That they have given up on the possibility of reform. This is likely self-perpetuating. Don't think anything can be done. Don't do anything. Nothing changes. Conclude you were right that nothing can be done.

You don't inherently need violence to bring about reform. Get enough people on the same page and get them to act, and you could shut down every business and city in America through purely non-violent means (their would likely be some violence from authorities in response and people fighting back against them, it would not be necessary to achieve the effect). Its a question of organization and breaking through peoples' cynicism and apathy.

Edit: The second paragraph is part of why I despise the self-congratulatory cynicism that seems so popular these days (I'm not saying this is the case with you since your cynicism at least seems more sincere).

[Napoleon the Clown]

What's the appropriate thing to do when peaceful protest continues to fail to bring about change? When you don't have the numbers needed to get someone better in office? What's the next step when peaceful acts have been failing for decades?

[Grumman]

You don't inherently need violence to bring about reform. Get enough people on the same page and get them to act, and you could shut down every business and city in America through purely non-violent means (their would likely be some violence from authorities in response and people fighting back against them, it would not be necessary to achieve the effect). Its a question of organization and breaking through peoples' cynicism and apathy.

Why waste your time shutting down every business and city in America when you could actually do something useful that also causes less collateral damage? 87% of voters in Baltimore supported a candidate whose administration is explicitly in favour of protecting men guilty of physically abusing prisoners in their custody from prosecution. What did they think was going to happen? Get them to vote for the Greens instead, and you might actually achieve something.

[The Romulan Republic]

What's the appropriate thing to do when peaceful protest continues to fail to bring about change? When you don't have the numbers needed to get someone better in office? What's the next step when peaceful acts have been failing for decades?

At that point you have four options:

1. Keep at it and hope things go better in the future.

2. Give up.

3. Adjust your tactics for non-violent resistance/try to increase your numbers, keep at it, and hope that time and a changing culture will cause things to change in your favour.

4. Turn to violence. You seem to be implicitly favouring this option on the assumption that it is faster/more effective, but I do not believe that it inherently is. As I've said before, history is full of bloody revolutions that failed to bring about a just society. And their is no guarantee of winning when you turn to violence.

Bottom line: change often is hard, takes time, and requires sacrifice whatever method you use. I prefer the method that doesn't involve shooting people, by and large.

I make an exception for genocide and other comparable mass killings because in that case the cost is enormous, the situation is incredibly urgent, and peacefully resisting means you get butchered without a fight. I have more or less no problem fighting people engaged in such atrocities, which is part of why, for example, I support war against the Islamic State and against Nazi Germany.

Same would go for anyone who decided to use nukes or even seriously threatened to.

Of course, this still presumes that the violence is in any way an effective solution. Violence for the sake of retribution or for its own sake I'm never a fan of. I accept violence only if its truly necessary and can help solve the problem.

[The Romulan Republic]

You don't inherently need violence to bring about reform. Get enough people on the same page and get them to act, and you could shut down every business and city in America through purely non-violent means (their would likely be some violence from authorities in response and people fighting back against them, it would not be necessary to achieve the effect). Its a question of organization and breaking through peoples' cynicism and apathy.

Why waste your time shutting down every business and city in America when you could actually do something useful that also causes less collateral damage? 87% of voters in Baltimore supported a candidate whose administration is explicitly in favour of protecting men guilty of physically abusing prisoners in their custody from prosecution. What did they think was going to happen? Get them to vote for the Greens instead, and you might actually achieve something.

Obviously electing a better government is preferable to mass protest. I was simply pointing out how one could force reform without violence if they had enough motivated people.

[madd0ct0r]

What's the appropriate thing to do when peaceful protest continues to fail to bring about change? When you don't have the numbers needed to get someone better in office? What's the next step when peaceful acts have been failing for decades?

At that point you have four options:

1. Keep at it and hope things go better in the future.

2. Give up.

3. Adjust your tactics for non-violent resistance/try to increase your numbers, keep at it, and hope that time and a changing culture will cause things to change in your favour.

4. Turn to violence. You seem to be implicitly favouring this option on the assumption that it is faster/more effective, but I do not believe that it inherently is. As I've said before, history is full of bloody revolutions that failed to bring about a just society. And their is no guarantee of winning when you turn to violence.

Bottom line: change often is hard, takes time, and requires sacrifice whatever method you use. I prefer the method that doesn't involve shooting people, by and large.

I make an exception for genocide and other comparable mass killings because in that case the cost is enormous, the situation is incredibly urgent, and peacefully resisting means you get butchered without a fight. I have more or less no problem fighting people engaged in such atrocities, which is part of why, for example, I support war against the Islamic State and against Nazi Germany.

Same would go for anyone who decided to use nukes or even seriously threatened to.

Of course, this still presumes that the violence is in any way an effective solution. Violence for the sake of retribution or for its own sake I'm never a fan of. I accept violence only if its truly necessary and can help solve the problem.

Another point in the favour is that if you win, it's easier to de-escalate from peaceful protest back to normal society. Killings and shootings create grudges that will never be balanced and have to be buried for peace (see northern ireland, where no-one thinks the other side got the justice it deserves, but just about puts up with it becuase it's better then the troubles were.)

[Patroklos]

What's the appropriate thing to do when peaceful protest continues to fail to bring about change? When you don't have the numbers needed to get someone better in office? What's the next step when peaceful acts have been failing for decades?

Assuming you are not addressing an acute threat (so speaking in general) respect democracy and accept you lost. Whether that means you give up or keep up the good fight is up to you, but just because you lose out in the commons doesn't mean you get to burn it down. Well, not if you don't want the majority to burn you down back.

This is one of the problems I have with all flavors of partisan, the assumption that if they fail in their efforts its because everyone else is stupid rather than they suck and advocating for their own position. If you can't convince the majority of something you should ask yourself why that is. You might find some great injustice, but more often than not you just disagree as a mater or principle. Minus something nefarious you don't just get to dismiss the majorities principles because you don't like them and derailing democracy isn't going to make your position against the majority stronger.

[salm]

What's the appropriate thing to do when peaceful protest continues to fail to bring about change? When you don't have the numbers needed to get someone better in office? What's the next step when peaceful acts have been failing for decades?

Assuming you are not addressing an acute threat (so speaking in general) respect democracy and accept you lost. Whether that means you give up or keep up the good fight is up to you, but just because you lose out in the commons doesn't mean you get to burn it down. Well, not if you don't want the majority to burn you down back.

This is one of the problems I have with all flavors of partisan, the assumption that if they fail in their efforts its because everyone else is stupid rather than they suck and advocating for their own position. If you can't convince the majority of something you should ask yourself why that is. You might find some great injustice, but more often than not you just disagree as a mater or principle. Minus something nefarious you don't just get to dismiss the majorities principles because you don't like them and derailing democracy isn't going to make your position against the majority stronger.

There are issues where the majority isn´t sufficiently affected so they don´t give a rats ass about it. These issues might be a major negative impact for a certain minority group. If this is the case it is very difficult to get a majority vote. Or even worse is if an injustice that, if changed, slightly inconveniences the majority but massivlely improves the lives of the affected minority.
Majorities have an ethical responsibility to protect the interests of minorites and if this responsibiltiy is not enacted the only thing the minority can do is to inconvenience the majority as long as it takes until the majority takes an interest in correcting the issue.

[CaptHawkeye]

What's the appropriate thing to do when peaceful protest continues to fail to bring about change? When you don't have the numbers needed to get someone better in office? What's the next step when peaceful acts have been failing for decades?

Assuming you are not addressing an acute threat (so speaking in general) respect democracy and accept you lost. Whether that means you give up or keep up the good fight is up to you, but just because you lose out in the commons doesn't mean you get to burn it down. Well, not if you don't want the majority to burn you down back.

This is one of the problems I have with all flavors of partisan, the assumption that if they fail in their efforts its because everyone else is stupid rather than they suck and advocating for their own position. If you can't convince the majority of something you should ask yourself why that is. You might find some great injustice, but more often than not you just disagree as a mater or principle. Minus something nefarious you don't just get to dismiss the majorities principles because you don't like them and derailing democracy isn't going to make your position against the majority stronger.

It's pretty sad that you think other people should accept their circumstances and just deal with it because you don't want them to rock your boat.

[Patroklos]

Except I said nothing of the sort.

[CaptHawkeye]

You should get your own act instead of playing the "defense attorney for my own ignorance" routine. Their is a problem in America's public system and just because you either don't see it or don't care does not mean others just have to live with it. Maybe if you weren't here bitching about the audacity of chronically underprivileged and trapped minorities to vent pent up rage over their hopeless situation it might not be obvious that you just want them to shut up and go home.

[Patroklos]

You should get your own act instead of playing the "defense attorney for my own ignorance" routine. Their is a problem in America's public system and just because you either don't see it or don't care does not mean others just have to live with it. Maybe if you weren't here bitching about the audacity of chronically underprivileged and trapped minorities to vent pent up rage over their hopeless situation it might not be obvious that you just want them to shut up and go home.

Except I made specific allowances for "acute" issues such as police brutality you lying sack of shit. Maybe you should 1.) learn to read you illiterate fuck and 2.) learn a communication tactic other than spamming the thread with juvenile and weak schlock when you realize you are wrong.

Note the bold parts:

Assuming you are not addressing an acute threat (so speaking in general) respect democracy and accept you lost. Whether that means you give up or keep up the good fight is up to you, but just because you lose out in the commons doesn't mean you get to burn it down. Well, not if you don't want the majority to burn you down back.

This is one of the problems I have with all flavors of partisan, the assumption that if they fail in their efforts its because everyone else is stupid rather than they suck and advocating for their own position. If you can't convince the majority of something you should ask yourself why that is. You might find some great injustice, but more often than not you just disagree as a mater or principle. Minus something nefarious you don't just get to dismiss the majorities principles because you don't like them and derailing democracy isn't going to make your position against the majority stronger.

The italicized part is also important (that's the leaning text, since you probably don't know what that means). That's where its made clear I am talking about everything from police brutality to fluoride in the drinking water issues.

Now I realize you can actually read most of that, your illiteracy having been established, but perhaps you can ask one of the educated people around you to read it out loud really slowly so you can comprehend it. If you succeed in that you can then return to this thread and talk to the adults.

[Napoleon the Clown]

For the purposes of this thread, give a useable definition of "acute threat." Does ongoing and extensive discrimination in hiring and pay count? What about excessive use of stop and frisk that doesn't result in violence? Disparate prosecution of drug offenses? Social services getting slashed, making it so that your already struggling neighborhood has to get inventive to be able to eat? How about redistricting of school boundaries that result in your children having no opportunity for a proper education?

Baltimore got a curfew and deployment of the National Guard over a relative handful of violent rioters. When drunken sports fans started smashing shit up, overturning cars, burning things... Where was the curfew and National Guard? The response in Baltimore speaks volumes as to how fucked up this country is. The response to the Occupy movement shows what happens when you peacefully protest against those in positions of power. Then you look at the situation at the Bundy ranch, where the "protestors" used a threat of force and effectively got their way. Can you understand why some may decide peaceful protests just don't work?

[Grumman]

When drunken sports fans started smashing shit up, overturning cars, burning things... Where was the curfew and National Guard?

...In another country? The United States isn't exactly going to invade Canada to break up an ice hockey riot, and for whatever reason ice hockey and soccer fans seem to be much more prone to rioting than basketball and NFL fans.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Baltimore Ravens. Super Bowl in 2013. You lose, good day sir.

[Block]

Remind me how long that lasted? Til 4 am that night right? And the police called in ALL available officers. If it had continued, don't you think they would've escalated the response?

[Napoleon the Clown]

Post-game riots are not an unknown thing in the US, especially championship games. Lakers/Pacers in 2000. Detroit Pistons/Portland Trail Blazers 1990. Red Sox/Yankees 2004. Pittsburgh Steelers/Arizona Cardinals 2006. Denver Broncos/Atlanta Falcons 1999. Detroit Tigers/Sand Diego Padres 1984. Michigan State/Duke University 1999. Chicago Bulls/Trail Blazers 1992. Why no preemptive curfew? Did they teargas people who were peacefully celebrating? Arrest reporters?


Remember, this isn't just about the response to rioters. This is also about the response people who peacefully protest.

[Grumman]

Why no preemptive curfew?

Because that's a fucking stupid idea? Specifically making it illegal to go out on a certain night for no other reason than because you know there's an event on that people want to go out for sounds more like a way of inciting a riot than preventing one.

On top of that, the primary sources for the claim of rioting appears to be the Daily Mail, who appear to have pulled the word out of their ass, and some moron who took a photo of a crowd next to a car and claimed that they were going to try to tip it over. The New York Post, by comparison, reported that "Baltimore police reported no disturbances or damage in the city."

[Zaune]

Another point in the favour is that if you win, it's easier to de-escalate from peaceful protest back to normal society. Killings and shootings create grudges that will never be balanced and have to be buried for peace (see northern ireland, where no-one thinks the other side got the justice it deserves, but just about puts up with it becuase it's better then the troubles were.)

The Troubles also ended with the IRA getting a non-trivial percentage of what they wanted.

Whether we like the idea or not, insurgencies do usually work in the long run, at least against occupying forces who haven't got the resources and/or the ruthlessness to simply genocide entire populations to suppress them.

[madd0ct0r]

My point was the IRA could have been just as successful, a lot less violent and northern ireland would have had less years of relative peace with stagnant economic growth.

But that's carts and horses - it was large unemployed frustrated groups that fed the troubles.