zlacker

>>mwseib+(OP)
> So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it.

Taboos around violence for political are one of the crucial building blocks for a functioning democracy. If those taboos are broken, even for a good cause, you set a precedence that violence works. And the next cause won’t be as good. One only has to look at the lessons of the Roman Revolution that started with the murder of Grachus, and ended with an Emperor who everyone acclaimed as they were so tired of the bloodshed.

>>RcouF1+pg
I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen.

The non-violent protests of Colin Kaepernick were mocked and used to rally the other side and just weren't effective.

The problem here is not the violence, but a policing system that is so fundamentally damaged and has not been effectively reformed fast enough.

The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard".

>>mmastr+Aj
violence speaks the language of the non-educated in the short term, but it does more damage in the long run.

>>superc+Ek
On the other hand, the french revolution, the american revolution, and the civil war could be argued to be violent protests for reform that did some good. I think slow erosion of rights and safety nets through quiet periods of apathy does more harm to more people, and becomes harder to reverse in the long run.

>>Aviceb+Uv
Can we not make comparisons between revolutions against oppressive monarchies for the right to representation and opportunistic looting and rioting? People's homes and livelihoods are literally going up in smoke and these riots aren't even over yet--can we hold off on the vague defenses of political violence?

>>throwa+6J
The American Revolution certainly included a good share of looting. Wealthy local townspeople who were viewed as sympathetic to Britain were brutally driven out of their homes, and whatever possessions they could not take with them as they fled to Canada or the Caribbean were plundered by the revolutionaries.

While the ideologues of the American Revolution were arguing for lofty Enlightenment-era ideals, on the ground things were much more opportunistic, with people joining the secessionist movement in order to plunder those Tory households, or to earn some money as a soldier or mercenary.

>>Medite+O51
No doubt, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. The fact that opportunistic looting took place doesn't refute the fact that the American Revolution was overwhelmingly about independence and representative government.

>>throwa+g81
"Protests of non-responsive oppressive governments and their agents that get accompanied by opportunistic looting" sounds like this last week to me.

>>majorm+AB1
Our government isn’t oppressive. There are actual oppressive governments. We have some bad police and a law that protects them too often. Mostly things are as good as they’ve ever been and getting better all the time. Everything else is the media money machine going brrrr.

>>throwa+m12
If things are as good as they've ever been then how come on one side of the political spectrum there's a broad movement to "make America great again" and on the other there's a mass movement taking to the streets? Does anyone think things are as good as they have ever been besides the bankers?