zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. vagran+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-03 10:29:29
> ...isn’t that like condemning all blacks when one commits murder?

I believe that's the case already, Ergo, racism.

If peaceful placards and singing kumbaya really did work effectively , for black people in particular all over the world, we'd have a very different discussion. Police brutality is an extension of the governments very existence - "legitimate" violence - which is turned up to war-time levels when minorities are concerned. All this is smoke an mirrors to the contempt of a man being killed by law enforcement officer in a way that would make Ted Bundy blush.

It seems whenever black people protest, the narrative seems to be of barbarians storming the city gates. An "over-reaction" if you will. Is it? The message of the protest is clear, if a tree falls - the ground will shake. Is that unreasonable?

replies(1): >>grupth+x6
2. grupth+x6[view] [source] 2020-06-03 11:41:17
>>vagran+(OP)
Singing Kumbaya would fix nothing, just like looting fixes nothing - don’t strawman me. I’ve yet to see any justification for the theft and vandalism. If you believe police brutality is a systemic problem in the government, might I suggest you fix the problem in that arena instead of on the streets? If you feel compelled to protest, maybe do it in a manner that actually communicates your demands. The person who killed Floyd will be dealt with in court, and Qualified Immunity is being repealed. What are you insisting that we protest?
replies(1): >>aspenm+pn
◧◩
3. aspenm+pn[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-03 13:53:07
>>grupth+x6
Looting proves that protest is amorphous, not black and white, and protest will autonomously raise the stakes when the risks associated with mass public social action is considered low, or the frequency between social progress payouts is too high, or the demand for social progress reaches a tipping point.
replies(1): >>devin+lc3
◧◩◪
4. devin+lc3[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-04 08:41:32
>>aspenm+pn
You should state this in a simpler way. As it reads, it sounds like absolute trash, but I get what you're trying to say.
replies(1): >>aspenm+ZV5
◧◩◪◨
5. aspenm+ZV5[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-05 03:12:37
>>devin+lc3
I have seen your comments in this thread and trust you to reword it in a less convoluted way if you choose. I agree that my syntactic construction was rather tortured.

My main point is protest is what protest does: force the issue. The methods of protest are varied and of disproportionate impact to society. If protest is to succeed, social impact must be calibrated to the received response to protester demands. If no response or negative response is received, increase social impact to belligerent parties and the general public, if necessary. Protest without corresponding social impact is ineffectual at forcing the issue but can be effective in virtue-signaling, which can create a virtuous loop of increasing awareness and support, and increasing numbers of protesters.

[go to top]