I understand what you're going for, but this is a bad approach. People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things, they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard. What you're saying here reads as "don't listen to them, they don't represent us" which is ... exactly the point.
We need to collectively shut the hell up for 5 minutes and just listen. Maybe if we actually did that, these riots wouldn't be happening.
That's not why people are looting liquor stores and target. Some people are just destroying things, there's always those groups of people in every riot. Sometimes people even travel to the riot just for the chance at destroying things.
A police station was burned today.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protests-looting-erupt-...
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-update...
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/29/protesters-take-mi...
https://www.startribune.com/these-minneapolis-st-paul-buildi...
This is my home. I visit many of these businesses. I do business with two owners on that list. There are groups of people out here who, yes, are looting to loot and burning to burn.
I understand burning down the precinct though. I'm not upset about that.
Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them.
This is almost the exact same phrase that MLK used, and it makes complete sense. If we use violence (implicit or explicit) to exclude people from "polite" discourse, they will find other ways to communicate.
Edit: this was unnecessarily flippant. Real lives are being horrifically affected and I truly feel for your community.
There are people who want to destroy things. See: https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/1266127105621983238?... for a the current manchild of the hour. It often cascades from individuals like these.
He may be the poster boy of the chaos but I assure you, as someone who has been in these streets, he is not alone. Please, come join us and you can see for yourself.
There are countless innocent business owners who were ransacked, who were had their livelihoods changed that would beg to differ with you.
I understand the concept of being loud to be heard. I understand making a statement. I understand burning down the precinct.
What I don't understand is looting independent pharmacies, liquor stores, and restaurants to steal inventory and merchandize and break into safes.
https://www.startribune.com/these-minneapolis-st-paul-buildi...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/gsum4h/minority_...
People are rioting because they see this as the only way forward, not because they want a new TV. They may get that TV in the process, but it's not the motivation.
Are you talking about property damage, or actual violence like police killing unarmed black folks?
It's also easy to forget that the people most harmed by looting are usually members of the (original) victims' own communities.
People are rioting because they are angry. It happens that people are constantly, very gently, angry at the entire capitalist complex. When people riot, therefore they are going to burn down the capitalist complex, because it irritates them and they are in a provocative mood.
I live a few blocks away from the location of the Floyd incident.
Attacking police officers (or really anyone, at all) shouldn't be encouraged, in my opinion. Ever.
Is an eye-for-an-eye the type of justice that's needed? I don't like it.
These are actual quotes:
"Fuck police, shoot the pigs!" "Innocents are gonna die" "This is just the start, you ready? You ready?" "We're going to burn this fucker down" "Kill the white folks! Kill whitey!"
Whatever. I've been labeled racist for not wanting to watch my city burn. Can't we have justice without violence?
Would would you only try to stop somebody who is stealing from you if they were white? If so that would be quite racist! Trying to stop anybody regardless of their race from stealing from you is not racist.
Regardless, according to the tweet you posted the policy is targeting poor people not people of color. 40% of poor in the US are non-hispanic whites. That means this policy would presumably also be targeting a huge number of white people as well.
Cry more about target losing televisions, if the death of yet another unarmed black man makes you feel nothing at least the looting does.
Tip: don't use absolutes. Always leave some margin. As long as there is one single person alive or that has ever lived that conflicts with your statement, that will be used as a counter-example and will be nitpicked to death and people will focus on that, instead of the main point.
If you say "most people", that immediately deflects those arguments. I've learned that the hard way.
Could you elaborate more? It is possible, I am not getting this.
Your racism is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store that is poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground. Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty. And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
Yes we can. In fact, this is the entire point of the police and criminal justice system - to reduce violence by providing a predictable and civil source of justice. Unfortunately yours has gone rogue, leading to the failed societal conditions you're experiencing.
Please link some proof or stop spreading this rumor on HN.
>White guy breaks windows and.. walks away? Holds an umbrella?
Is this evidence that he's a cop or just your imagination?
There are a lot of provocateurs and I don't think we can align any of their motives with those of the protesters. Many are trying to create a justification for violence against the protesters. Some are just "break shit and get free stuff".
What other interpretation am I to draw? The person I was responded to said Target was intentionally creating new policies to put people of color in jail.
If anything the person I was responding to is the one that needs to take a more plausible explanation of what Target was doing.
>The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store meant to be deliberately poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground.
Stopping thieves is pro-customer. Stores have to mark up the price of the goods they sell to cover the losses from thieves. If less people stole then the price of goods would be less.
I also don't consider a thief to be a customer. Anti-thief is not necessarily anti-customer.
>Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty.
Completely unrelated to the topic of Target and possible racism.
Do you have a look on your door? That is a technology that is defending your wealth. Why not leave your front door wide open and let anybody come in and take anything they want?
I am guessing you dislike other people's wealth but are fine with your own.
>And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
The person I was responding to said "Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them." This seems pretty direct in the accusation that Target is guilty. If he doesn't think the blame is on Target then he would presumably have some level of sympathy for them.
My racism. Hahah. I love this tactic - no YOU'RE the racist cause uhh, oh, I know, low expectations!
What low expectations? I AGREE that it's great that people are burning down police stations and looting massive capitalist businesses. You're the one coming here with a twisted ethical system that somehow places property over people. And you call me racist, lol.
It is not clear to me that insisting racism is creating a coalition that will change the system.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_...
Either the video is fake or real. Let's pretend it's real.
Either the video is staged or not.
* if staged, then this is a person trying to spread the idea that there are agent provocateurs
* if not staged, then this is a real person that did this
* they either did it of their own free will, or
* there is a group of people encouraging them to do it.
* they want to steal things
* they want to break things
* they want to get back at Autozone
* they want to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* they want to _start_ violence in the protest at that location
* the group wanted someone to steal things / break things / get back at autozone
* the group wanted to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* the group wanted to _start_ violence in the protest at that location.
I think it's reasonable to conclude either:
* this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
* somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
* it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
2 of that final set are especially bad, in my opinion; and, they're sufficiently likely as to not rule them, out.
( edit: formatting )
edit: sorry, I did miss one:
* he's trying to cause an insurance claim for the autozoneI have no clue what you are talking about. What sci-fi theme are you talking about?
>All I can say is that if you want conservative thought to remain relevant, try applying it where it can be useful.
Again I have no clue what you are talking about. I am not making a conservative point. I am just refuting the claim that Target is racist for arresting thieves.
Also seeing how I am being upvoted and you are being downvoted I am guessing my "conservative thoughts" are relevant to many people.
>Hint: the breakdown in law and order here started with the police department itself.
And? That has nothing to do with Target which is all we are talking about.
It also doesn't justify destroying other people's property.
> * this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves > * somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent > * it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
This is not reasonable at all.
2/3 options assume that this is an agent provocateur, which, again, no evidence has been produced to support, which was the entire point in the first place.
Again, someone please produce evidence that this person was a cop or agent provocateur, or stop posting this rumor.
And, it has nothing to do with the number of the options, 1 2 or 3. It has to do with the percentages of probabilities of each option.
It could be there's a 90% chance of the first option and a 5% chance of the second and a 5% chance of the third.
What possible situation did I miss in the collection?
Is my list non-exhaustive?