7
   

Rioting in Charlotte

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 12:04 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You are making a few different points here Finn (and while Edgar isn't willing to engage you rationally.. I am).

1. I agree with you about the difference between peaceful protest and looting. This does matter (and it hurts the message of people who have a message they want to express peacefully). Indeed

You point out that looting stores, vandalism and violence gains absolutely nothing. I agree completely with you.

2. I don't know what you are getting at with "rebellion". The word "rebellion" can be used in many ways from defying laws to organized armed insurgency. I don't know what point you are making here. I think the word "rioting" is sufficient unless there is a distinction you are trying to make that I don't understand.

I am making the point that there may be a legitimate reason for violence in the streets; when a government is so oppressive and so dangerous that citizens have no alternative but to suffer greatly or revolt/rebel. The riots in Charlotte were not a rebellion. The situation for African-Americans in the US doesn't call for rebellion, however IF a large group of them (or any other large group for that matter) felt they had no choice but violent rebellion, they couldn't at the same time demand their rights from the government against which they were rebelling. Well, of course they could, but it would be ridiculous.

My point is that people of all races, sex, religion etc suffer injustices in the US. We don't have a perfect system. There are a lot of repeat injustices within our systems. Yes, blacks have experienced more than any other group, and much worse in our early history, but are they in a position where the only logical choice is violent rebellion? Of course not, and, except perhaps for a few on the radical fringe, no African-American is calling for rebellion. This doesn't diminish the impact of the injustices they suffer, it's just that they are obviously not great enough to spark a rebellion. Slavery could and did and understandably so, this particular situation? No.

Since it's not rebellion (we agree here), there isn't even a remote reason to justify the rioting.


3. I think I disagree with you when you say "The legitimacy of one's demand for rights disappears when part of the demand involves depriving fellow citizens of their rights." We are always balancing competing rights which is a fact of life in a modern complex society.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this anyway. I think the rational argument of the protesters is that law enforcement should be fair and less lethal. These are the rights at stake.

The people who were actually demonstrating for a reason, the true protesters were not demanding that anyone's rights be violated or compromised. They certainly weren't, in their actions, violating or compromising anyone's rights.

The thugs and anarchists were violating and compromising the rights of others.

Balancing rights through the proper operation of our system is one thing. Ripping them from folks because you are "angry" is something else.


4. I agree with you about the facts of this case. It does seem that now every case where a Black man is shot will lead to protests regardless of the facts surrounding the case.

I understand why this happens, there is a lot of history and many legitimate cases where racist or simply incompetent police have killed innocent mainly Black men. But I agree that we, as a nation, need to get to the place where the facts can be discussed rationally.

More important is the discussion of where we go from here. Police have an important job. They need to be given the respect and resources to do their job safely. They do need to be able to ensure their own safety. This is balanced by the failure of police organizations and society in general to prevent abuses in African American communities.

This will take a rational discussion where competing legitimate interests need to find common ground.

I personally think that the peaceful protests are an important part of this needed discourse. The chant "Hands up Don't Shoot" is a very effective expression of the emotion of the African American community. I don't think that this is a a bad thing. I also agree with and support the Kaepernick protest (which is also peaceful and powerful).

I do think that on the other side, both sides (including the Black lives Matters activists) are going to need to engage in productive discourse that means looking at the actual facts.

For the most part we agree.

Every time something like this happens, we hear "We need to discuss" "We need a dialogue."

We do, but it has to be as truly honest as everyone says it should be.

Too often though, the people asking for honest discussion want to censor what the other person can say.

An "honest discussion" doesn't include knee-jerk accusations of racism or white privilege.

If you watched any of the coverage you would have seen multiple cases of "protesters" screaming at anyone who attempted to have a dialogue with them. Edgar can say he understands the anger that makes someone a screaming hothead with spittle on his or her mouth, but chances are they are not going to resolve anything with anyone.

My problem with "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!" is that it is based on a blatant lie. Michael Brown never uttered those words and he never attempted to stave off his violent end. He precipitated it. I don't care what the color of his skin is, he created the situation that led to his own demise. We can't have an honest discussion if one side's discussion is based on a falsehood.


0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 12:40 pm
Robert Reich
1 hr ·
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the account given by the Charlotte police of how they came to fatally shoot Keith Lamont Scott on Tuesday is true – that he had a handgun. Okay. So what? North Carolina is an open-carry state (like 30 other states) where a citizen has the right to walk around with a handgun.
The Charlotte police department says its officers saw Scott “inside a vehicle in the apartment complex. The subject exited the vehicle armed with a handgun. Officers observed the subject get back into the vehicle at which time they began to approach the subject.”
So exactly what illegal activity did the Charlotte police observe before they approached “the subject?” The only conclusion it’s possible to draw is that it’s illegal to carry a handgun in North Carolina if you’re African-America
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 12:44 pm
@edgarblythe,
Robert Reich has an opinion...Stop the Presses!!

And while we're at it, stop the investigation and stop due process.

Throw the black cop who shot the black citizen in jail because Robert Reich believe the only logical conclusion is that the citizen was murdered by the cop.

Oh, and by the way since Reich has concluded the citizen was murdered by the cop, riots in the street are justified.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 12:46 pm
You are verging on hysteria. I am sorry your prejudice is being laid bare so you start losing it. What's next? A riot at your house?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 12:56 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn, Why are you responding to Edgar's ad hominems? It's not worth it.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 01:21 pm
@maxdancona,
I didn't think I was.
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 11:13 pm
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 11:38 pm
@wmwcjr,
The Free Huge Project isn't liked by everyone (see what happened and happens at the Trump campaign).
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 11:50 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
The vid was Free Hugs.
0 Replies
 
AC14747
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2016 08:52 am
@edgarblythe,
Innocent in your world must mean:
Convicted violent felon in possession of an illegal gun and refusing to drop the gun when ordered by a uniformed police officer... okay I get it now.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2016 01:22 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
First, it is like physics: For every action there is an equal and opposed reaction


I don't know what you mean by this... but no, this is nothing like Physics. Fitting science into political ideology is a pet peeve of mine.




A "catalyst" in chemistry starts a chemical reaction, but doesn't become part of the chemical reaction. Similarly there have been demonstrations that only really got moving, so to speak, when the news cameras (aka, catalyst) showed up.

Also, quantum physics just claims that nothing is certain, but only likely, based on odds of quantaum physics. Sounds like a template for many of society's occurrences. It really nicely explains the Black Swan event.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2016 03:19 pm
@Foofie,
You understand what a "catalyst" is, and that metaphor is pretty good.

Your other two scientific metaphors show a lack of understanding of science.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2016 02:20 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You understand what a "catalyst" is, and that metaphor is pretty good.

Your other two scientific metaphors show a lack of understanding of science.



Sayeth the all wise one (Foofie bows obsequiously).
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2021 at 12:00:11