zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. dunkel+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-02 13:04:05
> You can be the beneficiary of a system and still understand that there are specific positive externalities of that system's partial failure. For example, a corrupt politician can understand why an anti-bribery campaign is beneficial for his country.

True, but presumably these software engineers that I was talking about think about the ability to do their work as something worthy and morally good, not simply as a benefit that they get from a corrupt system. On the other hand, corrupt politicians don't think of bribes as something desirable to have in a system: they either cynically exploit their position for strictly personal gain or think of themselves as victims of the system who are forced to take bribes.

> I think it's fair to say that destruction of private property turns the situation into an economic problem, which in turn is a political pressure point. Rich people have more influence over police departments and attorneys general than do poor people. But for such pressure to do any useful work, the message must be, "give us justice and the looting will end."

This can be a valid strategy. I am reminded of someone who successfully executed this strategy: ANC and Nelson Mandela. But they were very clear in their demands and always stressed that they were reluctantly engaging in violence only because they had exhausted all peaceful methods. In contrast it seems that many who support recent riots are not very interested in actual solutions to the problem and only want to stick it to the Man in some way.

replies(1): >>thisis+WK
2. thisis+WK[view] [source] 2020-06-02 17:16:02
>>dunkel+(OP)
It's also important to distinguish between the protests vs elements using the protests (and pandemic) as a cover for crime. In NYC it least, it seems that the protests & those looting are two separate groups.
[go to top]