This just in, republicans and "conservatives" hate the law. More news at 11.

No words from this guy huh?

People generally disapprove of the FBI but also think Trump should be investigated for all his criming

pacification effort needed

Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support

this thread should just be this picture.

that's a harsh indictment

Rioting is sometimes morally justifiable. The issues driving the BLM movement could justify rioting. The issues driving the January 6 insurrectionists absolutely do not.

Ridiculous. The Jan 6 insurrection was far worse than any riots we have had, but riots are never morally justifiable. Also, they almost never have any positive effects so they're not logical either.

Ehhh. Absolutes are always problematic. If the Jews at Auschwitz rioted would that not be justified? If slaves historically rioted would that not be justified? And yes they can, in fact have some positive effect. Even the abusers can sometimes see they went to far in abusive treatment and since they do not want to face or deal with riots they sometimes pull back.

Even in modern society it is often the desire to not see any more rioting (moreso than the protests) that makes citizens and politicians FINALLY address injustices they would prefer to ignore.

That is not a Pro Riot argument but denying the impact of riots is not good for historical analysis.


Sadly if the majority is generally not impacted by an injustice or worse they benefit from it, then even if they know it is a wrong that should be corrected, it is very hard to get them and thus politicians to focus on it. This injustice can carry forward decades with people in the majority saying 'that is terrible' but as they are not suffering any harm (and may benefit) fixing it is just pushed down the road.

Small peaceful protests (like taking a knee) are way to say to that majority, 'I perceive this as an injustice that needs to be addressed still'. But they are easy to ignore.

Larger peaceful protests are not as easy to ignore, but politicians generally are not moved to act on them unless they see them galvanizing voters in a way that would cost them votes.

Riots make politicians look very bad in one thing society really demands of them, which is the providing of Law and Order and a safe and productive society. Politicians feel they must address them in a way to end them, one way or the other, or voters will eventually put in other Politicians to do so.

Thus you often see politicians scrambling to FINALLY address the issues (suddenly you see a wave of police arrests for abuse and reforms in the process) and that is absolutely a result of the riots, arguably moreso than the protests.

Again that is not me making a pro riot argument, but to deny the impact is not useful.

Also re above, I would argue we now have a large percent of rioters who are disconnected from the protest grievance. In decades past there was far more of an association between the rioters being the extreme and more angry edge of the protesting crowd. People who get carried away, perhaps deliberately, and use rioting to further the message of their grievance.

Today, most large protests are just used both by criminal elements who just see it as cover but also by what I would call professional grievers. People who do not care one iota for the specific cause that has driven the protesters to the street and just will tag along to forward their personal grievances, many of which they might not even be able to elaborate. They just have a general disdain for society and can now vent it.

Sure, if they were only harming the slaveowners and those who directly supported slave ownership, but that would be more accurately called a rebellion than a riot.

If white people in northern states were rioting in towns with no slaves and where the majority of the population was already against slavery, harming individuals and businesses in the local area, that would not be justified.

And this analogy is accurate for most of the BLM protests. I live in Portland, in an area that was once majority black and is still one of the few Portland neighborhoods that has a significant black population. When someone was killed by police in 2000 miles away in a different jurisdiction, mostly young white people from other parts of town gathered in my area and then started setting fires and damaging businesses which mostly serve the black population. I can't figure out how anyone thinks that kind of action is justified, but some still try to defend the behavior.

Society deserves our disdain.

Maybe the Attica prison riot is a better example.

How do they serve them? Profit sharing? Free products? Discounted rates?

Selling them healthy food at a reasonable price? Giving them a place to do their banking for very low fees, if any?

There are plenty of poor neighborhoods where the only places where food can be bought is at unhealthy fast food outlets and expensive minimarts without much selection, and they only place to do any financial transactions are check-cashing or payday loan places, all with crazy high fees. If riots close down the supermarkets and banks, the only places willing to take the risks of operating there will be the ones who totally rip off their customers.

If slavery is NATIONAL and the citizens know it is wrong and yet the politicians do nothing to change it because it is just not a priority for them, and the citizens are not pushing the politicians despite feeling it is immoral and wrong because, as humans do we often struggle to get motivated to fix other peoples problems that do not affect us directly, then indeed rioting breaking out in the northern States can be both justified and useful.

It is not debatable that the realization of civil unrest has and does motivate citizens and politicians to finally address some long term wrongs they are inclined to otherwise just try and ignore.

Those who are held as slaves, can use riots to force the issue into the fore and to get change and its both moral and strategic to do so.

They are not compelled to remain peaceful slaves for decades more until citizens and politicians just organically decide to deal with the known wrong.

I'm talking about riots by white people in a poor black neighborhood, in a city/state where nearly everyone supports their cause already, protesting what is happening in another part of the country. Both in the theoretical northern states where people were mostly anti-slavery, and in the actual Portland of two years ago.

Making you uncomfortable is kind of the point of these protests.

There should be more riots in rich, white neighborhoods.

Making me uncomfortable doesn't solve any problems. But it's making more poor black people uncomfortable than anyone else.

The more things change...

Sure which is why I am addressing the absolute statement as always problematic.

If you make an absolute and then later reply 'I'm talking about some segment', then that goes to my point.

Well, I was always talking mostly about those particular riots. But I do think anything that I would call a riot is morally unjustified and generally counterproductive. Some of your examples I wouldn't consider to be a riot at all (slave rebellions, etc), and some of those certainly are justified. All just my opinion though.

How many people actually broke and entered into the capital that day? 1,000 or so? Do you really think there is a chance that 1k people can overtake a country of 330 million people with the strongest military and the strongest economy of the world without killing one person?

If it only takes 1,000 people to overtake the US how many people would it take to overtake canada and mexico? I bet me and you personally know enough people that we could overtake both those countries and then we can sell them to the US. I did some quick math and if 1k is all it takes to overrun the US then we can overtake mexico and canada with 150-200 people. Thoughts?

Mods, please move chillrob's post and any future posts that talk about 1,000 people overtaking the most powerful country in the world into the conspiracy theory thread.

The responses I got were mainly nonsense that weren't worth responding too. Hell 1/2 of them were saying it is racist to call the majority white rioters of BLM worse than the mostly white rioters of the supreme court justices or the mostly white rioters of the FBI.

It is like when dems claimed trump said mexicans were rapists when he clearly said that the mexicans sneaking over the border aren't the best mexicans and that some that are coming are rapists. Just incredible silly logic to say it is racist to say that some subset of a race is worse/better than another subset of the same race.