|
The Missouri state legislature recently passed a bill that substantially overhauls its municipal fine system in order to discourage practices such as those found in the damning Department of Justice report on Ferguson. The reform targets some of, though not all, of the sources of police harassment of black people and the accompanying distrust between police officers and the communities they serve. It is difficult to imagine a counter-factual scenario in which either these reforms or the DOJ investigation exist absent the significant media attention that was on Ferguson and St. Louis County last year. Would peaceful protesting have been enough? There were two phases of protests in Ferguson, the first which followed the killing of Michael Brown did not involve rioting, and while it heightened awareness of police homicide and brutality the protesters were awarded with a no-bill for the officer that killed him and an openly petulant response from the prosecutor. The lack of indictment resulted in the second wave of protests, which included rioting that received a substantial amount of media coverage. Now Missouri is on the cusp of major structural change that will hopefully discourage the abuses that so inflamed tensions. Similarly, in Baltimore recently peaceful protests over the death of Freddie Gray garnered (charitably) very little media attention. After riots broke out and the national media swarmed Baltimore, officers involved in the death were issued sweeping charges. For a historical example, riots following the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 provided the final impetus to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The modern, and extremely effective, gay rights movement was kicked off by the Stonewall Riots. Rioting can bring about change by bringing significant attention on the causes and grievances of the rioters, while also providing a vested interest to the sovereign in calming violence and preventing future flare ups. Riots are disruptive, violent, destructive and call attention to governmental and leadership failures. Peaceful protests are less disruptive, and can raise awareness of problems, but they do not provide a similar short term interest in resolving them. An elected politician has little practical reason to mind a protest if they believe it will not affect their political future. However there are obvious drawbacks to rioting. First, they are not always effective. The 2011 London riots over similar grievances produced little in the way of positive social change and instead much arguably classist criticisms of British society. They are destructive, and harm not only innocent individuals and businesses that likely had no hand in causing the harm that led to the riots, but also the rioters (in the form of criminal sanctions and violent retaliations). Riots will also frequently cause the public to be less sympathetic to a movement's grievances because of aforementioned damages and criminal nature of them. They can cause long term damage to a community through negative associations. Here are some more articulate defense of rioting than I am capable of producing: Nonviolence as Compliance, by Ta-nehisi Coates Message to Baltimore Protesters: Fight On, by Phil Agnew So Dungeons and Dragons, I ask you, is rioting a legitimate form of protest? Or is it wanton lawlessness and property destruction masquerading as it? No racism tia 
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
the former take care man
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Uprisings by the filthy peasantry disrupts business and good order OP.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmy39crFrPQ
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
I lust for bougie death.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
On the other hand; the Agatha noblemen must be made an example of and all be killed. In conclusion: the truth is in the middle
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Yes, it is. HTH.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
indeed, i would posit that it is the only legitimate form of protest for oppressed classes
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Sure, but the mass slaughter of rioting protestors is just as legitimate a form of political action imho
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:indeed, i would posit that it is the only legitimate form of protest for oppressed classes effective form of protest, yes. there's other methods but they're just ignored by those in power
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
I think it's going to be hard to have an honest, productive conversation, without a definition of rioting. What makes a riot a riot? When protestors block a main throughway, have they passed the threshold? Or does it only start when there's property damage? On a separate level, it seems like the OP assumes that rioting is under a crowd's control. I've been in mass protests that turned ugly (in some cases, into what could conceivably be called a riot), and it doesn't take a significant amount of the crowd to get it to happen. So you are assuming a level of enforcement that you can only expect from a much more organized party or movement, which frankly seems to be diametrically opposite to the ideologically disorganized movements of the past half-decade or more. Not to mention that sometimes it's police response that generates the violence, in which case you're basically ascribing the "rioters" a false agency.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
New Division posted:Sure, but the mass slaughter of rioting protestors is just as legitimate a form of political action imho
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:Killing people for theft and vandalism may be overkill. Also we won't have any hockey or football fans left in a lot of cities and think how that'd demoralize the home team! True. We must be cautious when we cull the unwashed masses. They are a resource to be carefully and scientifically managed.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:Killing people for theft and vandalism may be overkill. Also we won't have any hockey or football fans left in a lot of cities and think how that'd demoralize the home team!  Hokey and most football fans have always been fine when they started rioting for reasons. Why they're fine and free from things like police killing them... perhaps there is some form of inherent privilege that hokey and most football fans enjoy... Oh well, best not to think about such things and let the police sort out who the rioting thugs are and who the overzealous sports fans are, it's probably best this way.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:indeed, i would posit that it is the only legitimate form of protest for oppressed classes I dunno, guillotining the rich is also a good avenue too.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
"Is rioting a legitimate form of protest for oppressed classes?" posits the upper middle class guy who will never ever be personally affected by a riot.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Of course it is OP. A protest is worthless without the threat of violence in the form of riots, and if you want people to take your threats seriously you must follow through every now and then.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:"Is rioting a legitimate form of protest for oppressed classes?" posits the upper middle class guy who will never ever be personally affected by a riot. lol if you have never gone out on a tour to watch the peasantry wave sticks and forks in anger
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:37
|
|
-Troika- posted:"Is rioting a legitimate form of protest for oppressed classes?" posits the upper middle class guy who will never ever be personally affected by a riot. he projected
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Every riot is just a false flag let's go to golgotha style collection of different government and right wing organizations trying to give protests a bad name
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:"Is rioting a legitimate form of protest for oppressed classes?" posits the upper middle class guy who will never ever be personally affected by a riot. I did not deny that rioting is destructive, which seems to be what your "argument" is hinging on. I did highlight the efficacy of politically motivated riots, however. What should oppressed people do when they try to organize peacefully and their voice is unheard? Grin and bear injustice? What if the harms they are lashing out against are far greater than the damage and theft that would be caused by a riot?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
The only thing that people in authority respect is power, and both violence and the threat of violence are power. People have figured out that invoking the spirit of Gandhi and MLK are ways for those in power to take away one of the few tools that the underclass has against the elites, and these last few years have shown that it's becoming a threadbare strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
What is a legitimate protest and how does it compare to an illegitimate protest? Like the Zizek video points out, these people are largely powerless and without influence. The only ideology they know is consumerism, so what do you expect them to do when they're upset? Vote?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The only thing that people in authority respect is power, and both violence and the threat of violence are power. People have figured out that invoking the spirit of Gandhi and MLK are ways for those in power to take away one of the few tools that the underclass has against the elites, and these last few years have shown that it's becoming a threadbare strategy. Yeah, this too.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Rioting is unacceptable because if it is successful it will not be labeled a riot. Instead it will be an "uprising" or "revolution" or "protest". Victory leads to the act being granted legitimacy by the new status quo, whereas failures are de-legitimized to preserve the existing status quo. Rioting is thus, by default, an illegitimate act that destroys good order, whereas a revolution is legitimate because it was clearly justified, just look at all the heinous things the history books say were done before it. There is a reason it is "The Battle of Seattle" to one side, and "the 1999 WTO riot" by the other. Or "The Ferguson Protests" comparred against "the looting of Ferguson". And why this is "the Baltimore riots" by one side and "The Baltimore Uprising" by the other. So the real question is "Is violence and destruction an effective means to bring about change?", which is a much trickier question because there it hinges on the strategic and tactical considerations of each situation, and the moral consideration. The Indian Wars were certainly effective in transferring ownership of the land from the natives to the settlers, but few would call it moral. Nat Turner's Rebellion was very counterproductive to the cause of achieving freedom, but very few would say Turner wasn't right to fight for his freedom.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Riots be the rhyme of the unheard. hth, op.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
'Legitimacy' as a concept is bunk, whether or not you support a riot is totally dependent on if you support the cause or not. All the dickheads talking poo poo about rioters would themselves be doing the same thing, were they in the same position.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:What is a legitimate protest and how does it compare to an illegitimate protest? Like the Zizek video points out, these people are largely powerless and without influence. The only ideology they know is consumerism, so what do you expect them to do when they're upset? Vote? I suppose "legitimate" depends on individual politics but perhaps for these purposes it could be "as morally acceptable as other forms of protest" Fried Chicken posted:Rioting is unacceptable because if it is successful it will not be labeled a riot. Instead it will be an "uprising" or "revolution" or "protest". Victory leads to the act being granted legitimacy by the new status quo, whereas failures are de-legitimized to preserve the existing status quo. Rioting is thus, by default, an illegitimate act that destroys good order, whereas a revolution is legitimate because it was clearly justified, just look at all the heinous things the history books say were done before it. This is a good point and often true though not always. For example, I've never heard the Stonewall Riots being framed as anything other than a riot (that was in response to police abuse), even given the success of the riots in galvanizing LGBT oppression. I don't know if "Is violence and destruction an effective means to bring about change?" is quite the right framing for the issue, since that could include systematic and organized violence, either by the state or non-state actors, that communities are less likely to be sympathetic to. Riots are generally spontaneous, emotional and chaotic events that pose a greater challenge to stability than more organized political killing (though as seen in the Iraq War, that can erode society just as much).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:What is a legitimate protest and how does it compare to an illegitimate protest? Like the Zizek video points out, these people are largely powerless and without influence. The only ideology they know is consumerism, so what do you expect them to do when they're upset? Vote? In my opinion, people should vote.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:In my opinion, people should vote. What about when it is impossible to change something by voting? Or litigation?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
violence is the only way to project power, and when you're from a poor urban neighborhood suffering from decades of racial oppression the only violence you can really rely on is the kind committed against store windows legitimacy, in the political sense, is a little white lie we tell ourselves to help us forget that all of our governments have been founded on the broken corpses and stolen lands of the losers of history. violence IS legitimacy. hope this helps, op
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:In my opinion, people should vote. lol good one. need we remind you it took a hundred to nearly two hundred years for the 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments? and then the gutting of the voting rights acts by SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The only thing that people in authority respect is power, and both violence and the threat of violence are power. People have figured out that invoking the spirit of Gandhi and MLK are ways for those in power to take away one of the few tools that the underclass has against the elites, and these last few years have shown that it's becoming a threadbare strategy. But you can imagine other circumstances where non-violence is suicidal. It'd be better to think about coercion, and violent and non-violent forms of it. paragon1 posted:Of course it is OP. A protest is worthless without the threat of violence in the form of riots, and if you want people to take your threats seriously you must follow through every now and then. Non-violent protests did not cause the U.S. to withdraw troops from Iraq at the beginning, but take a longer view, and I bet it had an influence on Obama's election instead of Hillary's, which did lead to the withdrawal. (Of course, the anti-war movement is now demobilized, so the troops are back in smaller numbers.) We also know that governments that repress non-violent movements can cause backlashes. Jagchosis posted:This is a good point and often true though not always. For example, I've never heard the Stonewall Riots being framed as anything other than a riot (that was in response to police abuse), even given the success of the riots in galvanizing LGBT oppression. I don't know if "Is violence and destruction an effective means to bring about change?" is quite the right framing for the issue, since that could include systematic and organized violence, either by the state or non-state actors, that communities are less likely to be sympathetic to. Riots are generally spontaneous, emotional and chaotic events that pose a greater challenge to stability than more organized political killing (though as seen in the Iraq War, that can erode society just as much). Especially in the long run when talking about gay rights, it's hard to say violent forms of activism had more of an effect than non-violent forms. I'd also have to be convinced the non-violent forms couldn't have happened *without* Stonewall -- and that'd be a pretty dubious claim. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 02:44 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Perhaps it would be more helpful to frame things from the perspective of political riots as being one way of utilizing force, of which there are several violent and non-violent methods. "Legitimacy" to me is merely a common understanding of how things are supposed to be ordered and how they should work. I'd say any community rioting is "legitimate" when the implied covenant under which they would not riot has been broken. Like, say, when the police that are supposed to be protecting your community keep murdering your young men. So, to answer the OPs question, riots automatically become legitimate the moment a class becomes oppressed.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Lynching is also a legitimate form of keeping order when police refuse to keep your neighborhood safe
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Go on.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
so i dont get it this is supposed to be a trap thread but how is it derfferent from any other autistic nerd thread in a come fight me (rhetorically) forum?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:this is supposed to be a trap thread That's ridiculous
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Speaking in a country was founded on riots I think riots are bad because the nonwhites are doing them.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Real talk: riots would be more acceptable if they didn't invariably destroy poo poo that wasn't involved with whatever the grievance is.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:52
|
|