What's new
By:

Protestors storm capital

Archie Moses said:
Yes, one group had a way better reason to protest (a reason I stand by) but I'll be damned if I'd ever condone arson, looting, destruction and some of the **** show we saw. Some people have a hard time condemning it because they believe in the reason for the protest.
Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of fantasy world you live in, but peaceful change doesn't usually happen because those in power generally don't want to agree to change out of the goodness of their hearts. I mean, you wouldn't condone arson, looting, destruction. How the **** do you think your country was created? Boston Tea Party involved the destruction of almost 2 millions dollars(in today's money) worth of private property.

Oh, but you stand by the reason, right? You agree with need racial justice? You just want to see it happen without anything unpleasant. And if it doesn't happen, what then? At which point is it okay to engage in violence, and how in the world do you figure that point hasn't been reached in the US?

Non-violent resistance is nice optics, but it hides an uglier reality. Dire Straits playing for Mandela and US college kids carrying placards saying "Divest from South Africa" looks nice on TV, but it was the deteriorating security situation that made the regime realize they needed to end Apartheid. That meant violence and destruction, else South Africa might still be minority ruled.

If you really, really believe that a cause is morally right, then you should support things a lot worse than looting in order to see it succeed. And perhaps not make moral equivalencies of the "there were good people on both sides" variety.
 
JimLes said:
I don't know what kind of fantasy world you live in, but peaceful change doesn't usually happen because those in power generally don't want to agree to change out of the goodness of their hearts. I mean, you wouldn't condone arson, looting, destruction. How the **** do you think your country was created? Boston Tea Party involved the destruction of almost 2 millions dollars(in today's money) worth of private property.

Oh, but you stand by the reason, right? You agree with need racial justice? You just want to see it happen without anything unpleasant. And if it doesn't happen, what then? At which point is it okay to engage in violence, and how in the world do you figure that point hasn't been reached in the US?

Non-violent resistance is nice optics, but it hides an uglier reality. Dire Straits playing for Mandela and US college kids carrying placards saying "Divest from South Africa" looks nice on TV, but it was the deteriorating security situation that made the regime realize they needed to end Apartheid. That meant violence and destruction, else South Africa might still be minority ruled.

If you really, really believe that a cause is morally right, then you should support things a lot worse than looting in order to see it succeed. And perhaps not make moral equivalencies of the "there were good people on both sides" variety.
Click to expand...
Another point is that much of the violence during the BLM protests included pro-right groups coming in and stirring up trouble. What the right doesn't understand is there would be no need for BLM protest if they just afforded black people the same rights under the Constitution. Many GOP supporters only believe that constitutional right are for them. Any rights blacks have earned in the US has been through getting the crap beat out of them, murder, rape, vandalism, threats, burning crosses etc. The reality is a majority of GOP white people only believe the rights of the Constitution are meant for them. Blacks and other minorities who are citizens should have the same rights so whining about some vandalism and looting seems ridiculous especially after they have defended the traitors who attack the Capital.
 
JimLes said:
I don't know what kind of fantasy world you live in, but peaceful change doesn't usually happen because those in power generally don't want to agree to change out of the goodness of their hearts. I mean, you wouldn't condone arson, looting, destruction. How the **** do you think your country was created? Boston Tea Party involved the destruction of almost 2 millions dollars(in today's money) worth of private property.

Oh, but you stand by the reason, right? You agree with need racial justice? You just want to see it happen without anything unpleasant. And if it doesn't happen, what then? At which point is it okay to engage in violence, and how in the world do you figure that point hasn't been reached in the US?

Non-violent resistance is nice optics, but it hides an uglier reality. Dire Straits playing for Mandela and US college kids carrying placards saying "Divest from South Africa" looks nice on TV, but it was the deteriorating security situation that made the regime realize they needed to end Apartheid. That meant violence and destruction, else South Africa might still be minority ruled.

If you really, really believe that a cause is morally right, then you should support things a lot worse than looting in order to see it succeed. And perhaps not make moral equivalencies of the "there were good people on both sides" variety.
Click to expand...
You have heard of Martin Luther King and all he did to advance civil rights, yes?
Just saying.
 
gandalfe said:
As powerful and important as his non-violent approach was, it was helped a lot by having Malcolm X in the movement as well. Allies were able to say "If you don't work with King, you'll have to deal with Malcolm."
Click to expand...
At that, Malcom X only supported violence for self-defense, IIRC.
 
My favorite detail of this story is it's being said there was like 30 off duty cops involved....

flashing their badges...
 
the police department is the biggest gang/organized crime operation in america, convince me otherwise...


for them its a matter of 'professional courtesy'
 
im reminded of the 1992 harvey keitel movie "Bad Lieutenant"



and also the song by Prince Paul/Everlast -- "The Men in Blue"
 
Lord Bullingdon said:
My favorite detail of this story is it's being said there was like 30 off duty cops involved....

flashing their badges...
Click to expand...

There were many, many retired state and federal employees, including the retired, cops, firemen and military.

I'm gonna guess they all managed to sign their very generous pension checks that they get every month from the evil, lying government that they're looking to overthrow.
 
JazzGal said:
I'm reluctant to ask him if he knows this hijacked meaning. I'm afraid of what his answer would be, and I would prefer to continue liking him.

I agree with much of what you wrote above, except that you were only talking about the peaceful protesters in the Capitol riot and the non-peaceful ones in the racial riots. Not exactly a fair comparison. Both groups had people who believed in their cause, and both groups had some who took advantage of the situation to destroy. But only one of those groups of non-violent protestors had truth on their side.
Click to expand...
Writing non-violent at the first part of my post was supposed to be violent. I'm not sure why I wrote non-violent. I was trying to compare both actions on each different protests as the same.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top