Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Could be. Could be a right-wing accelerationist too.

Yeah yeah, I know, same thing. 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I though magats wanted to "burn it all down"?

All their preparations for post-society life were for naught.  The machine guns, the Jim Baker slop buckets, the makeshift bunkers.  None of those prepared them for the apocalypse.  It turns out that they couldn't even go without a haircut for a month before they begged for society to come back.  Maybe Jim Baker should start selling Flowbees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snake Diggity said:

The irony!

I have no advice or admonition for the people taking direct action against a fascist government. I only offer admiration for their spirit and hope for their success and safety.

- Any small business hurt by this should be compensated by the fascist government that caused all this.
- Any major corporation hurt by this should go fuck itself. (And enjoy their massive insurance payout.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

Dude had a fucking gas mask and an umbrella that, one could only assume, was to protect him from UV rays. 

Whoever he is, clearly he didn't belong. 

Clearly a black terrorist parading as a cop to make the cops look bad. False flag and all that. Our boys in blue are the good guys here. The man was allegedly forging! He got off easy. When I was pulling myself up by my bootstraps, I would have been grateful to be slowly suffocated with my face pressed into the asphalt by the knee of a public servant.

Let's not get our priorities confused here, my white friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely hate seeing what has happened in Minneapolis.  I hate seeing the rule of force and violence replace the rule of law.  I hate seeing businesses destroyed, I hate seeing the places where people work torn apart.  But what I hate most of all is that this outcome was completely predictable, and entirely avoidable.  Some of my thoughts from the other thread that seem appropriate here:

What we see is not people behaving “reasonably.” The death of the rule of law is the death of reason.
We can choose to govern ourselves as men: that requires laws and rules, uniformly and equally applied to all.
Or we can choose to govern ourselves as animals: might makes right, exercise power however it pleases you.
The powers that govern Minneapolis chose poorly. They chose - via the armed branch of the government, the cops - to govern by law of the jungle. They purposefully invoked that law. So law of the jungle is what follows.
Treat people like animals, they’ll act like animals.

 ----------------------

We can simplify what's happening in Minneapolis even further.

Just ask this simple question: in this society, does the rule of law apply?

When the powers-that-be demonstrate that no, the rule of law does not apply (by repeatedly demonstrating that the armed branch of the powers-that-be is not subject to the rule of law), then the question is answered rather definitively.

So, once it has been stated that in this society, the rule of law does not apply......imagine all of the shit that flows from that.  Yeah, it's "Lord of the Flies" type shit.

"Civilized society" is merely a collection of mutual agreements to behave a certain way.  The veneer is paper thin.  When some of the most fundamental of those agreements (like the agreement that there are protectors, employed and paid on behalf of society, who will uphold and enforce the law) are breached, the whole damned thing falls apart.  This is "human society 101" - it's how collections of human beings behave, and the consequences of certain behaviors.  

Shit, imagine that you had a contract with a particular group of people - let's call them "Aggies."  And every time you tried to enforce your contract (using the rule of law) against the Aggies, the Aggies all circled their wagons, winked at their friends in the courthouse, and your case was promptly dismissed.  Over, and over, and over.  You've now provided lots of product to the Aggies, but they haven't paid you -- like they promised, like all contracts promise.  And you can't get satisfaction through the rule of law.  What do people who have agreements to provide product for payment, but no access to the rule of law, do to enforce their agreements?  Check out any drug deal shootout -- that's EXACTLY what it looks like when you have agreements and obligations that can only be enforced by rule of the gun (you can't exactly sue a drug dealer for failing to deliver the promised product).  That's what you'll have to do to get the Aggies to pay you.

You know how a lot of you point to shitty social situations and say "it all starts with the parents?"  You're not wrong.  When parents break the trust of their role -- to nurture and guide their children -- things go to shit in a hurry.  Well, the analog here is pretty spot-on -- when the protectors break the trust of their role, and become the perpetrators of violence, all while using the badge as an impenetrable shield from legal consequences...things go to shit in a hurry.

This outcome is 100% predictable, 100% consistent with human nature as we have known it for thousands of years, and 100% preventable.  Abide by the social contract, and we can live by rule of law instead of rule of force.  Abandon the social contract, and this is the inevitable result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

What does the umbrella do from a cop or right wing antagonist perspective?  Is it a disguised tear gas launcher like from James Bond?

You are obviously not Kingsman material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The umbrella is probably cover from drones, helicopters, aerial footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another recommendation to watch that 3-minute MLK clip on the first page of this thread. He says it perfectly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I absolutely hate seeing what has happened in Minneapolis.  I hate seeing the rule of force and violence replace the rule of law.  I hate seeing businesses destroyed, I hate seeing the places where people work torn apart.  But what I hate most of all is that this outcome was completely predictable, and entirely avoidable.  Some of my thoughts from the other thread that seem appropriate here:

What we see is not people behaving “reasonably.” The death of the rule of law is the death of reason.
We can choose to govern ourselves as men: that requires laws and rules, uniformly and equally applied to all.
Or we can choose to govern ourselves as animals: might makes right, exercise power however it pleases you.
The powers that govern Minneapolis chose poorly. They chose - via the armed branch of the government, the cops - to govern by law of the jungle. They purposefully invoked that law. So law of the jungle is what follows.
Treat people like animals, they’ll act like animals.

 ----------------------

We can simplify what's happening in Minneapolis even further.

Just ask this simple question: in this society, does the rule of law apply?

When the powers-that-be demonstrate that no, the rule of law does not apply (by repeatedly demonstrating that the armed branch of the powers-that-be is not subject to the rule of law), then the question is answered rather definitively.

So, once it has been stated that in this society, the rule of law does not apply......imagine all of the shit that flows from that.  Yeah, it's "Lord of the Flies" type shit.

"Civilized society" is merely a collection of mutual agreements to behave a certain way.  The veneer is paper thin.  When some of the most fundamental of those agreements (like the agreement that there are protectors, employed and paid on behalf of society, who will uphold and enforce the law) are breached, the whole damned thing falls apart.  This is "human society 101" - it's how collections of human beings behave, and the consequences of certain behaviors.  

Shit, imagine that you had a contract with a particular group of people - let's call them "Aggies."  And every time you tried to enforce your contract (using the rule of law) against the Aggies, the Aggies all circled their wagons, winked at their friends in the courthouse, and your case was promptly dismissed.  Over, and over, and over.  You've now provided lots of product to the Aggies, but they haven't paid you -- like they promised, like all contracts promise.  And you can't get satisfaction through the rule of law.  What do people who have agreements to provide product for payment, but no access to the rule of law, do to enforce their agreements?  Check out any drug deal shootout -- that's EXACTLY what it looks like when you have agreements and obligations that can only be enforced by rule of the gun (you can't exactly sue a drug dealer for failing to deliver the promised product).  That's what you'll have to do to get the Aggies to pay you.

You know how a lot of you point to shitty social situations and say "it all starts with the parents?"  You're not wrong.  When parents break the trust of their role -- to nurture and guide their children -- things go to shit in a hurry.  Well, the analog here is pretty spot-on -- when the protectors break the trust of their role, and become the perpetrators of violence, all while using the badge as an impenetrable shield from legal consequences...things go to shit in a hurry.

This outcome is 100% predictable, 100% consistent with human nature as we have known it for thousands of years, and 100% preventable.  Abide by the social contract, and we can live by rule of law instead of rule of force.  Abandon the social contract, and this is the inevitable result.

Yeah, I don't really have the time to get into a long explanation of why I think Target is an appropriate target for their rage, but it's basically all of this. These are systemic problems and everyone who benefits from the system and does nothing to stop its abuses ultimately shares responsibility for the harms it causes. That includes you, me, bad_teammate, and as much as I'm sure he'll refuse to admit it, Rougarou. And it definitely includes Target, and more specifically, its directors and shareholders. Target, as one of the bigger beneficiaries of the system, has a much larger role in how it operates than we do, particularly in the city in which it is headquartered. Anyone who doesn't believe that large corporations don't have significant political influence in the cities they're located in, particularly in the cities they're headquartered in, is a complete fool. Are they solely responsible? Certainly not. Would the problems persist absent Target's existence? Almost certainly. But Target does exist, and it has, intentionally or not, consciously or not, played a significant role in permitting or even exacerbating the systemic abuses that resulted in this unrest. So Target is a particularly appropriate (goddamnit) target for the looting that was inevitably going to result in response to the systemic abuses targeted against a population that was denied the benefits of the social compact, but always expected to comply with its requirements regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bernorange said:

You are obviously not Kingsman material.

Nah, I'm a Statesman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, I don't really have the time to get into a long explanation of why I think Target is an appropriate target for their rage, but it's basically all of this. These are systemic problems and everyone who benefits from the system and does nothing to stop its abuses ultimately shares responsibility for the harms it causes. That includes you, me, bad_teammate, and as much as I'm sure he'll refuse to admit it, Rougarou. And it definitely includes Target, and more specifically, its directors and shareholders. Target, as one of the bigger beneficiaries of the system, has a much larger role in how it operates than we do, particularly in the city in which it is headquartered. Anyone who doesn't believe that large corporations don't have significant political influence in the cities they're located in, particularly in the cities they're headquartered in, is a complete fool. Are they solely responsible? Certainly not. Would the problems persist absent Target's existence? Almost certainly. But Target does exist, and it has, intentionally or not, consciously or not, played a significant role in permitting or even exacerbating the systemic abuses that resulted in this unrest. So Target is a particularly appropriate (goddamnit) target for the looting that was inevitably going to result in response to the systemic abuses targeted against a population that was denied the benefits of the social compact, but always expected to comply with its requirements regardless.

wildcat09-

I've read what you have had to say; two or three times. I have taken the time to consider it. I deem you a fool or a troll and not worth engaging on this thread any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Clearly a black terrorist parading as a cop to make the cops look bad. False flag and all that. Our boys in blue are the good guys here. The man was allegedly forging! .

Lest we forget right here in Austin a few years ago, another alleged black forger was chased by a detective, who commandeered a citizens vehicle and proceeded to “accidentally “ shoot the alleged forger in the back of the head.  Charges against the officer were dropped after he was indicted. 

Edited by Judge Roybeanbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I don't really have the time to get into a long explanation of why I think Target is an appropriate target for their rage, but it's basically all of this. These are systemic problems and everyone who benefits from the system and does nothing to stop its abuses ultimately shares responsibility for the harms it causes. That includes you, me, bad_teammate, and as much as I'm sure he'll refuse to admit it, Rougarou. And it definitely includes Target, and more specifically, its directors and shareholders. Target, as one of the bigger beneficiaries of the system, has a much larger role in how it operates than we do, particularly in the city in which it is headquartered. Anyone who doesn't believe that large corporations don't have significant political influence in the cities they're located in, particularly in the cities they're headquartered in, is a complete fool. Are they solely responsible? Certainly not. Would the problems persist absent Target's existence? Almost certainly. But Target does exist, and it has, intentionally or not, consciously or not, played a significant role in permitting or even exacerbating the systemic abuses that resulted in this unrest. So Target is a particularly appropriate (goddamnit) target for the looting that was inevitably going to result in response to the systemic abuses targeted against a population that was denied the benefits of the social compact, but always expected to comply with its requirements regardless.
That or it was a block from the police station and ooh look free TVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

... These are systemic problems and everyone who benefits from the system and does nothing to stop its abuses ultimately shares responsibility for the harms it causes. ... Target, as one of the bigger beneficiaries of the system, has a much larger role in how it operates than we do, ... But Target does exist, and it has, intentionally or not, consciously or not, played a significant role in permitting or even exacerbating the systemic abuses that resulted in this unrest. So Target is a particularly appropriate (goddamnit) target ...

So you are saying that the Twin Towers were an appropriate target for disaffected foreign nationals to protest their abuses on 9/11/01?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

lol that's completely insane

(providing embedded version)

 

Literally all of those cops could've gone home if just one had gone inside and arrested the fucker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bernorange said:

So you are saying that the Twin Towers were an appropriate target for disaffected foreign nationals to protest their abuses on 9/11/01?

Oh for fuck's sake, Bern. Eat shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol that's completely insane

(providing embedded version)

 

Kind of blows a hole in the one bad apple defense of cops. They're all complicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Looting and burning the Target, which is headquartered in Minneapolis and has a ton of political power there, and thus arguably shares some degree of responsibility for the city’s repeated failures to reign in its police department, seems completely appropriate.

 

Target always has nicer looters than Walmart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIAP - Chris Rock on "bad apples"

Quote

Bad apple? That's a lovely name for murderer. ... I mean, I've had a bad apple. It was tart, but it didn't choke me out. I know it's hard being a cop … But some jobs can't have bad apples. Some jobs, everybody gotta be good. Like, pilots. American Airlines can't be like, 'You know, most of our pilots like to land, we just got a few bad apples that like to crash into mountains.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video of the army of cops in front of that cops house is unreal. I can see parking a couple there to ensure folks don't set the place on fire, but THAT many??? Total bullshit and a needless escalation and an absolute "Fuck You" to the people of Minneapolis, especially those that are African American

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

That video of the army of cops in front of that cops house is unreal. I can see parking a couple there to ensure folks don't set the place on fire, but THAT many??? Total bullshit and a needless escalation and an absolute "Fuck You" to the people of Minneapolis, especially those that are African American

That was absolutely the message they intended to send, and they sent it.

Cops: "don't you dare fuck with us -- we will send out a fucking army."

Also cops: "we will let another cop murder someone right in front of us, and do nothing to stop him."

I'm guessing you can see how members of the public find that incongruity a tad problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That was absolutely the message they intended to send, and they sent it.

Cops: "don't you dare fuck with us -- we will send out a fucking army."

Also cops: "we will let another cop murder someone right in front of us, and do nothing to stop him."

I'm guessing you can see how members of the public find that incongruity a tad problematic.

I wish cities would quit letting police forces hold them hostage. Am I supposed to believe that all of those cops are in that guy's front yard on their own dime? I cannot wait to see the OT claims filed by cops that stood in that killers front yard.

Cities need to refuse to negotiate with police unions unless ALL wrongful death and police abuse claims are paid out by the police pension/retirement funds. Also the partner of the "bad" apple faces same punishment as the offender. Fuck this blue line shit. Don't get me started on all the BS asset forfeiture rackets these fuckers are running as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What happened to George Floyd is wrong.

Looting is wrong.

These are separate or separable concepts.

wildcat09 delivers the most reasonable explanation for "conflating" the two.  Nevertheless, it is a post hoc justification.  No one went through that analysis before the looting occurred.  It is a justification for "by any means necessary," though.

Then you are left with the MLK/Malcolm X debate.

I think responding to a criminal act with further criminal acts does muddy the issues in the public forum.  It shouldn't, because they're separable.  But it will.  The popo will use it as "look what we're up against" and that will work for some people.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

This makes me sad.  A dude was murdered by the police and the world actually stood up and took notice.  Not even the usual retards were defending it.  Maybe something would have actually happened from it.  If nothing else, it seemed like a lot of people suddenly had their eyes opened.  Now we have the biggest distraction ever to refocus on racial us v. them.

lebron james lol GIF by NBA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What happened to George Floyd is wrong.

Looting is wrong.

These are separate or separable concepts.

wildcat09 delivers the most reasonable explanation for "conflating" the two.  Nevertheless, it is a post hoc justification.  No one went through that analysis before the looting occurred.  It is a justification for "by any means necessary," though.

Then you are left with the MLK/Malcolm X debate.

I disagree -- they are not separable.  One flows from the other.  Dissolve the rule of law, and you get lawlessness.   It is a 100% predictable result, and it's the known human reaction.  The reaction is not intended to elicit a favorable response, it isn't to exact particular "revenge."  The reaction is just how humans behave when they are told there are no rules or laws.  It's unfocused rage and selfishness.  It's not complicated.

We saw a great example in the brilliant film and social commentary "Major League."  Suzanne Dorn sees her husband Roger cavorting with a bimbo on TV.  So what does she do?  She goes out and bangs Ricky Vaughn:

hnyV6E2.gif

Was that intended to have some sort of favorable response?  To fix their marriage?  No.  It was just humans being human.  You inflicted pain, I'll inflict pain on you.  Hell, that was MORE focused (it was revenge on a particular person).  But she also decided to engage in her own selfish satisfaction, motivated by her deep anger.

Angry people who feel ignored wreck shit down, burn shit, revenge-fuck, whatever.  It's what humans do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No one went through that analysis before the looting occurred.

You sure?

Quote

I think responding to a criminal act with further criminal acts does muddy the issues in the public forum.  It shouldn't, because they're separable.  But it will.  The popo will use it as "look what we're up against" and that will work for some people.

Sure, which is why it is vital that you pick a side and be vigorous.

Public opinion and common sense are shaped by what is said and what is "allowed" (i.e., what goes unchallenged). This is the whole problem with people doing the pundit game ("I'm not saying <X>, but others are going to say <X> so we have to be ~*~*~ worried ~*~*~ about <X>.")

When we treat bullshit like it's worth our time we validate the bullshit. So if you are on their side and you know that the looting narrative is racist bullshit, you call it racist bullshit every single time. Don't even let it breathe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What happened to George Floyd is wrong.

Looting is wrong.

These are separate or separable concepts.

wildcat09 delivers the most reasonable explanation for "conflating" the two.  Nevertheless, it is a post hoc justification.  No one went through that analysis before the looting occurred.  It is a justification for "by any means necessary," though.

Then you are left with the MLK/Malcolm X debate.

It's all about education. As long as America keeps sliding down into the depths of illiteracy and an uneducated population these problems of racism and disparity will only grow wider and more violent. The white establishment will never reel in the cops because the cops protect their interests and subjugate minorities for them. As Long as Americans remain uneducated and too stupid to see what is happening this stuff will keep occurring. There is no fix as America is thoroughly broken as a supposedly free society. 

It would take mass assassinations of the establishment hierarchy to even begin to possibly cause any sort of change, and I don't even think that would do much unless followed by revolution 1776 style. 

It sucks that it's like this but freedom can't exist when a massive portion of the population is subjugated and treated as inhuman. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another video of the Autozone guy:

Yeah, just selfish stupid looters. Couldn't possibly be cops or non-police white supremacists being provocateurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I disagree -- they are not separable.  One flows from the other.  Dissolve the rule of law, and you get lawlessness.   It is a 100% predictable result, and it's the known human reaction.  The reaction is not intended to elicit a favorable response, it isn't to exact particular "revenge."  The reaction is just how humans behave when they are told there are no rules or laws.  It's unfocused rage and selfishness.  It's not complicated.

We saw a great example in the brilliant film and social commentary "Major League."  Suzanne Dorn sees her husband Roger cavorting with a bimbo on TV.  So what does she do?  She goes out and bangs Ricky Vaughn:

hnyV6E2.gif

Was that intended to have some sort of favorable response?  To fix their marriage?  No.  It was just humans being human.  You inflicted pain, I'll inflict pain on you.  Hell, that was MORE focused (it was revenge on a particular person).  But she also decided to engage in her own selfish satisfaction, motivated by her deep anger.

Angry people who feel ignored wreck shit down, burn shit, revenge-fuck, whatever.  It's what humans do.

I don't mean that there's no causation between them.  Or logical or psychological relationship.

But as far as right or wrong, justified or unjustified, they are analytically separable.

Declaring or believing looting to be wrong does nothing to diminish the wrongness of the death of George Floyd.  And vice-versa.

One needn't jump through psychological or analytical hoops to justify one by the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't mean that there's no causation between them.  Or logical or psychological relationship.

But as far as right or wrong, justified or unjustified, they are analytically separable.

Declaring or believing looting to be wrong does nothing to diminish the wrongness of the death of George Floyd.  And vice-versa.

One needn't jump through psychological or analytical hoops to justify one by the other.

Again, it's not in terms of right or wrong or justification.  It's baser than that, and that's the point - we've CHOSEN the universe of "base" animalistic actions as opposed to rational, justified action.  

Every one of us knows that if you come at a dog with a stick enough times, he'll bite you.  It's animal reaction, not a thought-out process.  Abuse people with impunity enough, they explode.  It's the ABSENCE of rational thought and justification.  That's my point.  We've opted in to a horrific way of thinking -- animal behavior, violence, law of the jungle.  That opt-in has known and predictable consequences.  

We shouldn't have opted in to that.

Edited by Brisketexan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Freedom is an illusion dreamed by the brainwashed servant.  There is no other pill to take.

So swallow the one that makes you ill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Again, it's not in terms of right or wrong or justification.  It's baser than that, and that's the point - we've CHOSEN the universe of "base" animalistic actions as opposed to rational, justified action.  

Every one of us knows that if you come at a dog with a stick enough times, he'll bite you.  It's animal reaction, not a thought-out process.  Abuse people with impunity enough, they explode.  It's the ABSENCE of rational thought and justification.  That's my point.  We've opted in to a horrific way of thinking -- animal behavior, violence, law of the jungle.  That opt-in has known and predictable consequences.  

We shouldn't have opted in to that.

I don't disagree. 

But my point is different. Whether there is an understandable relationship between Floyd's death and looting is not my point.  From a standpoint of right and wrong and one event justifying the other, they can be analyzed separately.

A lot of people may not agree with or understand your point.  For example, they could argue that as humans, it is incumbent upon us to restrain our animal instincts, no matter how justified they may be.  And I would argue that that notion applies both to cops interfacing with people they are mad at or scared of, as well as to looters who are angry about one law for thee, one law for me, or just want a new flat screen.

But, given the separability of the issues, it's not necessary that people accept any particular argument.  To the extent people fail to maintain the separation, they are as or more likely to find that looting somehow explains the death.  And that's a whole other kettle of fish implicating racism, fear, etc. that underlies what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For example, they could argue that as humans, it is incumbent upon us to restrain our animal instincts, no matter how justified they may be.

But it's actually irrational to continue to operate under rules and norms when the other "side" is not.

It's as if you continue to engage in a gentlemens' boxing match under Marquess of Queensberry rules, while your opponent is swinging a nail-studded 2X4 at your head.  The order of a society is and always will be the basest form of rules that particular society has adopted.

When you have been informed that the only law that applies is the law of the jungle, you would be IRRATIONAL to not follow that law.   That's the whole fucking problem.  Shit, it can be conveyed to people selfishly: if you want to avoid having a huge swath of the population act under the law of the jungle, then how about we have our power structure stop telling them that's the law?  If we stop doing that, then we won't be eliciting this response.  That sounds like a win, from a selfish standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber."
                                              -Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Literally all of those cops could've gone home if just one had gone inside and arrested the fucker. 

 

2 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Kind of blows a hole in the one bad apple defense of cops. They're all complicit.

 

1 hour ago, BrazilHorn said:

That video of the army of cops in front of that cops house is unreal. I can see parking a couple there to ensure folks don't set the place on fire, but THAT many??? Total bullshit and a needless escalation and an absolute "Fuck You" to the people of Minneapolis, especially those that are African American

Where's the economical outrage @The_Great_Hornsby? As a fellow tax paying citizen, this doesn't anger you?

Edited by BigHorn'13
Meant to link video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But it's actually irrational to continue to operate under rules and norms when the other "side" is not.

It's as if you continue to engage in a gentlemens' boxing match under Marquess of Queensberry rules, while your opponent is swinging a nail-studded 2X4 at your head.  The order of a society is and always will be the basest form of rules that particular society has adopted.

When you have been informed that the only law that applies is the law of the jungle, you would be IRRATIONAL to not follow that law.   That's the whole fucking problem.  Shit, it can be conveyed to people selfishly: if you want to avoid having a huge swath of the population act under the law of the jungle, then how about we have our power structure stop telling them that's the law?  If we stop doing that, then we won't be eliciting this response.  That sounds like a win, from a selfish standpoint.

"The law of the jungle only applies if you are poor. And that's because poor people are animals." Donald Trump, 2021

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 4th&Five said:

 

The true victims are the lawyers. We don't get our cut when the looters just smash windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Helobious said:

Say what you want about Spike Lee, it took me a long time to finally understand his point about the riot scene in Do The Right Thing. Many people will always value a white man's property over a black man's life. 

Many of the rioters may be people truly fed up with their reality, but the ones that loot just see an opportunity for greed and take it.  

Da mayor- “Always do the right thing.”

Mookie- “that’s it? I got it.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real fun part is when we all get to get really mad over this again a few years from now after the judiciary tells Floyd's family to pound sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Cops choking people are in fact entitled to qualified immunity per republican judges because no court ever said they couldn’t murder someone by choking them before. Maybe after the 5 years it takes this case to wind itself through the courts cops chocking people will incur civil liability since that liability will be established. 

Edited by JimmyJames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...