Support NeoGAF

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Isn't this a matter of philosophy and personal belief? Violence vs nonviolence are not true/false answer questions. It is a matter of what you personally believe in. Even during the times of MLK there was a lot of debate over which course of action to take and not everyone agreed with his methods. Some wanted much more direct and aggressive approaches.

It is to the degree that those in power are interested or disinterested in the well-being of the oppressed.

 

[Dryk]

I think this is one of the first threads where majority of the posts support getting angry, and doing something about it.

The people in a position to affect change have consistently shown that violence is the only way to make them sit up and pay attention. I don't have to like that, but that has often been the reality of the situation.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

The ends justifying the means is an extreme way to view situations, It's not about tailoring it to personal needs, it's about recognizing a positive out of a negative situations and frankly I purely disagree with your logic on this issue. You have to accept what happens in a situation because you cannot change it. Not because you support the negativity but because regardless of your philosophy the reality is it happened and the reality is it happened for a reason.

Frankly, it's naive to ever sit and say violence can never be justified or ever be necessary. Sometimes it is necessary to achieve change, sometimes it is a catalyst for change and sometimes it's an unfortunate outcome of that change but violence itself is not always unjustified. Do I agree with the Baltimore riots? Naw, I don't think they really are at the point where they need to riot (though I don't live in that community so I don't know what they experience on a daily basis). Am I particularly surprised that it has come to this? With all the unrest in America over this issue? No not really. The people exercising violence against the people constantly harassing and being violent towards them is not surprising, again #historyoftheworld If you look at change and situations at a personal level, you're never going to find positivity in anything.

You don't have to like how things occurred but you still have to accept that every thing that did happen was part of the cause. You have to accept that damages occurred. You don't have to like it but you still have to accept these occurred in order for your change to come about.

We disagree on how we morally handle our decisions. If you want to continue this discussion you're free to PM me as this has gone off-topic.

 

[Ghostmaster]

The problem is that riots alone are not enough.

A leader, or a strong enough idea has to come forth very quickly to give riots a lasting meaning, or else they will be just remembered for the violence and damaged that they caused.

The unfortunate truth is that people are mostly sheep, and they need someone to guide them, someone who can they latch on to, and use his courage/zeal as their own.

Now some might say that the idea of stopping racist violence is strong enough, but it is not, it is too nebulous and can easily be swayed by various machinations from those who would not see it come to fruition.

It's a similar case with the 99% protests (yes, those were mostly non-violent, but some of the problems are the same), everyone knows that the wealth distribution in the USA is not what it should be, but there was no clear idea on how to change that, and it all fell apart.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

You don't have to like how things occurred but you still have to accept that every thing that did happen was part of the cause. You have to accept that damages occurred. You don't have to like it but you still have to accept these occurred in order for your change to come about.

We disagree on how we morally handle our decisions. If you want to continue this discussion you're free to PM me as this has gone off-topic.

Of course I accept it. Again welcome to the history of the world where there is no 1 method that is effective for every single situation. This discussion is also on topic, it's a direct result of what rioting accomplishes and what it entails.

 

[BeauRoger]

Looting is almost always a part of riots in cities. Disconnecting the two is disingenuous at best. They happen because people are angry and blindly lash out due to that anger. Anger often results in irrational acts, but these acts have profound impacts when done on the scale of riots.

The possible "practical benefits of looting" and destroying property has absolutely zero to do with how it should be viewed in moral terms. Its a terrible argument to make from a philosophical standpoint since the contigent outcome is all that dictates if its ethical or not, which means that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn. You could replace "loot" with "kill innocents" and the structure of the argument would remain the same. That should tell you exactly hos dumb this argument is.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It is to the degree that those in power are interested or disinterested in the well-being of the oppressed.

Nonetheless, it is still a belief/philosophy. A lot of people have believed in nonviolence and pacifism to the point where they have been ready to become martyrs. It's not difficult to see why some would express disappointment in resorting to violence when they strongly believe in the alternative. Doesn't mean one is unequivocally right or wrong.

 

[Dude Abides]

This isn't psychoanalysis. It's applying the principles of behavior analysis to the situation, which is incredibly useful and successful. Everything in your environment behaviorally manipulates you.

Even assuming behavioral analysis is useful on an individual level, there's no reason to think it's at all useful in analyzing broad social trends. That's the fallacy of composition.

 

[gohepcat]

Funny to see all these people, all safe in their homes, having the priveliege of not getting shot by police every couple weeks or so telling other people not to get angry about it.

Motherfucker even if you do support the people getting angry you can't expect him to do it in a controlled manner. You know what the fuck pure rage is? Pure rage coming from a life long of being treated like shit by authorities. Where your life is worth absolutely nothing. Fuck me you have no idea about it and now you want people to be controlled and shit.

Light shit up Baltimore, I hope this becomes one hell of an uprising.

One could say the exact same thing about the people supporting this.

I've seen firsthand what it's like to live in an impoverished high crime neighborhood. I've spent the first 18 years of my life in one.

That makes it very hard to see people positing academic scenarios on why this may be an effective tool for change from the comfort of their house.

And I know it would be infuriating for the families and Baltimore that have to go through all of this shit to have people on a message board weighing the pros and cons of violently beating people and breaking shit.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Nonetheless, it is still a belief/philosophy. A lot of people have believed in nonviolence and pacifism to the point where they have been ready to become martyrs. It's not difficult to see why some would express disappointment in resorting to violence when they strongly believe in the alternative. Doesn't mean one is unequivocally right or wrong.

Your position makes it sound like you believe violence is unequivocally wrong.

Those in power have no real motive to change because they are in power.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Your position makes it sound like you believe violence is unequivocally wrong.

Those in power have no real motive to change because they are in power.

My position is that different people believe in different things and they express those strong beliefs. I don't see how anyone would expect a pacifist to ever admit violence is an answer. Of course they will denounce it, it runs contrary to their entire point.

 

[Archer]

This thread.

 

[HoJu]

These riots that included killing police officers led to massive changes for workers and students alike.

actually, there wasn't.

It took three hours of brutal fighting to do that: clouds of tear gas, Molotov cocktails, exploding automobile gas tanks, cobblestones hurled at the police, students chased down and beaten, more than 300 people injured but fortunately no gunfire - and no deaths.

sure, there can be positive effects of rioting, but it depends on the size, location, context, etc. i don't think that burning a CVS or beating a truck driver (Rodney King riots) solve anything. linking these activities with other protesters doesn't help. acts like these are inevitable though, but not because of the significance of the cause, but because of the mob mentality.

just feel like these types of acts bring attention to the riots themselves and not to the cause. they get the most attention when they really shouldn't.

 

[Rastafarian42]

Great thread topic and right on time in light of the baltimore incident. I agree with the opening quote of MLK that riots are the voice of the unheard. One thing I find interesting is the various other violent riots that helped changed history. Anyway it's great to have this food of thought thanks OP.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

This thread.

And now you're a part of it

My position is that different people believe in different things and they express those strong beliefs. I don't see how anyone would expect a pacifist to ever admit violence is an answer. Of course they will denounce it, it runs contrary to their entire point.

So do you not have any feelings of your own, or...?

 

[SeanR1221]

Even assuming behavioral analysis is useful on an individual level, there's no reason to think it's at all useful in analyzing broad social trends. That's the fallacy of composition.

So behavior happens randomly and can't be predicted or controlled.

Better get a grant and draft up your results on that one bud. You're going to be flying in the face of a mountain of research so you might have a bit of resistance ahead of you.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

So do you not have any feelings of your own, or...?

My only feeling is sadness at the moment. Sadness that so much has gone so wrong.

 

[Dude Abides]

So behavior happens randomly and can't be predicted or controlled.

Better get a grant and draft up your results on that one bud. You're going to be flying in the face of a mountain of research so you might have a bit of resistance ahead of you.

Nobody said your first sentence - that's a dumb straw man. I realize you're very proud of whatever training in behavioral therapy you have - you've made that clear in several threads - but in this instance it's a case if someone wbo only has a hammer thinking everything looks like a nail.

 

[Amir0x]

You want to balk at the absolutism of saying violence never works? Fine. Violence maybe might work some of the time. But when you consider that facts brought up here:

and see that non-violence is more successful and doesn't betray your morals, I say that violent protests do not work as a solution.

It's simply incorrect. They do work as a solution, 26% of the time. That's factually what those statistics mean. You can't make up bullshit because you don't like the way it sounds.

26% success rate on a binary choice.

"Massive"

That's over a 1 in 4 chance of it succeeding if attempted. For nonviolence, it's a 1 in 2 chance. Statistically a 1 in 4 chance is considered quite large. Now let's say you tried nonviolence for years, decades and more and it didn't work. Nothing has changed. That's what has happened here.

What happens is people turn to more radical solutions, because the reward for finding some way to end the horrible injustices is in their mind worth the cost of turning to more extreme methods. And it's a hard argument to make that it's not when over and over people's children are slaughtered mercilessly by police who then never get prosecuted because the justice system is fundamentally broken. And then have a government ignore all your pleas to fix this issue since this country was founded. In any historical context you can think of, eventually things like that lead to violence. It's a sad state of affairs, it's tragic but it's a human thing and ignoring the problem is what led to this end. You can abhor it, but violence sometimes works. And people turn to it often when they exhaust other options.

None of this is a moral statement. It simply is what it is. We can't change that it happens and it has utility. We just must understand the reasons things like this happen, and why people do turn to this. Because sometimes it works, sometimes they've exhausted all other options, and sometimes it does indeed make a message that people listen to.

To make a simple example for you, let's say you had some form of severe cancer. And you've exhausted all these treatments, and the Doctor only have one last thing they can try. This medication is going to do a number on your body and may have long term repercussions for your health, but you will be able to survive the cancer and live for many more long years. The Doctor says it has a 26% chance of working. Otherwise you almost certainly will die. How many here would try it? I'd wager most people would try it. Those statistics certainly don't seem so tiny any more in the face of the alternative.

The possible "practical benefits of looting" and destroying property has absolutely zero to do with how it should be viewed in moral terms. Its a terrible argument to make from a philosophical standpoint since the contigent outcome is all that dictates if its ethical or not, which means that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn. You could replace "loot" with "kill innocents" and the structure of the argument would remain the same. That should tell you exactly hos dumb this argument is.

I am not making a moral argument though. I am making a historical argument about causes and utility. I am morally against nuclear weapons, and yet they still worked at one point in history. Pretending that it didn't work because it's inconvenient to my moral standpoint does not actually change the history there.

Looting is a part of rioting, and violent riots have worked. This isn't a moral statement. Understanding why this violent rioting is happening - because years of peaceful protests have not worked and the injustices continue onward with nobody in power willing to fix it - is also not a moral statement. It's a simple statement of fact.

The argument put forward every time these violent riots happen is that they never work and that it obfuscates the message the rioters have in mind. Problem for people making this argument is that it is not true. And being morally against violent rioting does not change that unless we fix the injustices, they will continue to occur. It's easy to say we don't like something. It's quite a bit more difficult to find constructive solutions to them. Here we know how to fix it, but the gridlock in congress and the protection of police with the code of blue means it is not being fixed. This is a big problem, because there's only so long any oppressed peoples are going to be nonviolent.

 

[SeanR1221]

Nobody said your first sentence - that's a dumb straw man. I realize you're very proud of whatever training in behavioral therapy you have - you've made that clear in several threads - but in this instance it's a case if someone wbo only has a hammer thinking everything looks like a nail.

Nobody said the first sentence. Then explain...

Even assuming behavioral analysis is useful on an individual level, there's no reason to think it's at all useful in analyzing broad social trends. That's the fallacy of composition.

Assuming it's useful on an individual basis (lol)

No reason to think it's useful in analyzing social trends (lol)

So if you're not saying behavior can't be predicted and controlled what are you saying.

To your second point, you're still wrong. Literally everything is behavior. Even your thoughts. So behavior principles can be applied to every part of life. Everything IS a nail because everything IS behavior.

You can borrow my hammer if you want.

 

[TalonJH]

I don't advocate the violence but it really doesn't surprise me. People are pissed and there doesn't seem like there is a way to fix things. I personally just don't agree with the violence.

Anyway, for people wanting to know about violence in the American revolution and leading up to it.

In the spring of 1766, John Gilchrist, a Norfolk merchant and ship-owner, came to believe that Captain William Smith had reported his smuggling activities to British authorities. In retribution, Gilchrist and several accomplices captured Smith and, as he reported, "dawbed my body and face all over with tar and afterwards threw feathers on me." Smith's assailants, which included the mayor of Norfolk, then carted him "through every street in town," and threw him into the sea. Fortunately, Smith was rescued by a passing boat just as he was "sinking, being able to swim no longer."

http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/irvin.feathers.html

from Benjamin Carp’s fantastic Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party and the Making of America:

August 1765: effigies of a British minister and an American stamp distributor (of the unpopular Stamp Act) were hung in the South End; at dusk the effigies were taken down by a crowd who then completely destroyed a building owned by the stamp distributor, went to the man’s house and threw rocks at the windows, broke in, and destroyed some furniture. When Governor Hutchinson tried to reason with the rioters, they threw bricks at him. The stamp distributor resigned the next day.

June 1768: When smuggler John Hancock’s ship was held by authorities who suspected it had smuggled goods, a group of over 300 Bostonians attacked the customs officers, throwing bricks and stones at them, and then went to the house of one officer and broke all the windows.

March 1770: a group of men and boys were throwing rocks at British soldiers who were competing with them for jobs (many soldiers moonlighted to enhance their income); this turned into the Boston Massacre when the soldiers opened fire, afraid for their lives as the crowd grew in size and malice.

November 1771: customs officials seize a boat carrying smuggled tea; another boat comes up alongside and thirty armed men attack the customs officials with clubs, swords, and guns. They forced the British captain into the hold, where he nearly died of his wounds, while they took the tea and left, wounded men lying on the decks of two boats.

November 1773: a crowd gathered outside the house of a man who had a commission to sell tea from the EIC, shouting and beating down his gate. The commissioner yelled at them from an upper window to leave, and fired a shot. The mob shattered all the windows of the house and were only turned away from assaulting the owner by the pleas of some patriots that there were women in the house.

Tea commissioners were routinely summoned to public meetings by anonymous letters which threatened their lives as well as their jobs if they did not show up. Commissioners and others deemed hostile to the patriot cause were tarred and feathered—the “American torture.”

This is also interesting and relevant to what people are saying:

This willingness to use violence got mixed reviews from patriot leaders. Some felt it was justifiable because it was in protest of an unfair government. Others felt it gave the patriot cause a bad name, and attracted lowlifes who weren't fighting for democracy. All knew it had to be carefully managed to keep it under control: at any moment a mob nominally in the service of colonial leaders could become a force that knew no loyalty and could not be controlled by anyone.

https://thehistoricpresent.wordpres...boston-tea-party-and-a-tradition-of-violence/

 

[Amir0x]

actually, there wasn't.

.

Yeah there was.

Link

On that day, students occupied the Sorbonne buildings, converting it into a commune, and striking workers and students protested in the Paris streets. During the next few days, the unrest spread to other French universities, and labor strikes rolled across the country, eventually involving several million workers and paralyzing France. On the evening of May 24, the worst fighting of the May crisis occurred in Paris. Revolutionary students temporarily seized the Bourse (Paris Stock Exchange), raised a communist red flag over the building, and then tried to set it on fire. One policeman was killed in the night’s violence.

Not that it matters either way - hundreds were injured during this period even if we eliminate the police death, which is all that is required to make the point about violent protests.

 

[perfectchaos007]

This thread.

social media activism may get a lot of flack, but what about these so called "awareness" months. Like does wearing pink in October really help fight breast cancer?

 

[ST2K]

I always think of the JFK quote when people freak out about this stuff: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Perhaps people should take those concerns seriously when brought up outside of riots if people don't want riots like these to take place. It doesn't excuse anything that the rioters do. It's just going to happen if you don't at least appear to be making changes.

 

[Ultryx]

social media activism may get a lot of flack, but what about these so called "awareness" months. Like does wearing pink in October really help fight breast cancer?

I think its main purpose is to promote awareness, and it turn hopefully bring in higher than normal donations.

 

[Jawbreaker]

Violence should always be a last resort when peaceful protest has been exhausted and no change has been achieved. In some cases, violence does indeed work, though that violence should always be directed at the appropriate targets, not your neighbor or local business owner. The opportunistic vandalism, looting and destruction of local businesses as well as violence against bystanders by those using a protest or well-aimed riot to sate their lack of moral character, should be punished. Some cars may take damage and a few store windows may break—after all, riots are aggressive and can get very violent—but making those specific things the focal point of your personal protest/rioting just outs you as a detriment to the movement and a shitty human being I don't want to fight alongside.

The people who do these things are not my brothers in solidarity. I will not shield these people to strengthen the point that violent revolution can work; I will vehemently disavow their actions while promoting the need for protest and sometimes the destruction of government property to send a symbolic, pointed message if peaceful protest doesn't effect change. Again, violence is the absolute last resort, and even when employing violent means, it needs to be POINTED at the appropriate targets. A lack of organization certainly makes that less likely.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The US examples listed in the OP and others that come to mind didn't achieve anything concrete, that's a very disingenuous and non historical post. Stonewall didn't change policy. You can argue it inspired gay people to better organize but there's no evidence that wouldn't happen without Stonewall.

Nor does the Blair Mountain example seem historical. 15-16 years later progress was achieved in a different industry? Ok.

What did the Watts riots accomplish? What about Detroit, DC, Baltimore, Cleveland? Absolutely nothing. If anything the Detroit riots helped spur white fight. It strikes me as pure laziness to rewrite history in this fashion.

Violence works in a variety of political ways, sure. I would not deny that. But absolutely nothing has been accomplished by modern "race" riots in the US. Burning down your own businesses doesn't achieve anything. Not voting in local elections sure as hell doesn't achieve anything. Ferguson increased their voter participation this year...to 30%. That's still pathetic. I would imagine that Baltimore's local election participation rate is lower. Why should their mayor worry about backlash due to her calling people thugs - they don't vote. A lot of power is being ceded in inner cities - not just when it comes to judges and sheriffs, but also school boards and municipalities.

I see a lot of rage and anger, which is understandable. But I don't really see any concrete movements to change things on a grassroots level. Getting hashtags trending and verbally annihilating bad posters on GAF isn't changing shit. I'm not saying people should stop doing those things, I'm saying that there is a pretty clear blueprint for starting change on a grassroots level and it is NOT being implemented in these cities.

 

[Dude Abides]

Nobody said the first sentence. Then explain...



Assuming it's useful on an individual basis (lol)

No reason to think it's useful in analyzing social trends (lol)

So if you're not saying behavior can't be predicted and controlled what are you saying.

To your second point, you're still wrong. Literally everything is behavior. Even your thoughts. So behavior principles can be applied to every part of life. Everything IS a nail because everything IS behavior.

You can borrow my hammer if you want.

You're complaining that I granted one of your premises?

You're taking modes of thought developed to help individuals deal with their immediate environment and acting as though it's a useful way to analyze how conflicts in and between aggregate communities, governments, civil institutions, etc. play out. if it isn't evident to you how dubious a move that is intellectually I doubt anything I can say will convince you.

 

[freeofgreed]

The US examples listed in the OP and others that come to mind didn't achieve anything concrete, that's a very disingenuous and non historical post. Stonewall didn't change policy. You can argue it inspired gay people to better organize but there's no evidence that wouldn't happen without Stonewall.

Nor does the Blair Mountain example seem historical. 15-16 years later progress was achieved in a different industry? Ok.

What did the Watts riots accomplish? What about Detroit, DC, Baltimore, Cleveland? Absolutely nothing. If anything the Detroit riots helped spur white fight. It strikes me as pure laziness to rewrite history in this fashion.

Violence works in a variety of political ways, sure. I would not deny that. But absolutely nothing has been accomplished by modern "race" riots in the US. Burning down your own businesses doesn't achieve anything. Not voting in local elections sure as hell doesn't achieve anything. Ferguson increased their voter participation this year...to 30%. That's still pathetic. I would imagine that Baltimore's local election participation rate is lower. Why should their mayor worry about backlash due to her calling people thugs - they don't vote. A lot of power is being ceded in inner cities - not just when it comes to judges and sheriffs, but also school boards and municipalities.

I see a lot of rage and anger, which is understandable. But I don't really see any concrete movements to change things on a grassroots level. Getting hashtags trending and verbally annihilating bad posters on GAF isn't changing shit. I'm not saying people should stop doing those things, I'm saying that there is a pretty clear blueprint for starting change on a grassroots level and it is NOT being implemented in these cities.

The OP's argument is in response to the people who say riots don't work. Even though the fail far more than they do succeed. OP provide proof that they still have the possibility of working.

Also if people don't want riots to occur, the solution is simple they should go after the source of the protests and not the protesters themselves. It's shameful how most Americans don't care about the issue, then get mad when riots occur when they themselves could've prevented the riots by going after the issue instead.

 

[Amir0x]

The US examples listed in the OP and others that come to mind didn't achieve anything concrete, that's a very disingenuous and non historical post. Stonewall didn't change policy. You can argue it inspired gay people to better organize but there's no evidence that wouldn't happen without Stonewall.

There's no argument to be made otherwise - Stonewall galvanized the LGBTQ community and was the focal starting point for endless groups that eventually effected change. There's literally hundreds of organizations that sprang up as a result of that event and many of them went on to be directly responsible for social change. You want to talk about some nebulous alternative reality where "these things would have happened anyway" be my guest - but they didn't happen, and history cannot be rewritten to suggest they did. Thus, a violent riot had practical and real world benefits despite the fact that most people would be morally against a violent riot, myself included. At best you can make an argument that it was a combination of nonviolence and violence that resulted in where we are today.

Nor does the Blair Mountain example seem historical. 15-16 years later progress was achieved in a different industry? Ok.

You can read the links involved. You're disagreeing with the conclusions of historians, and judging by your analysis of modern politics I'm going to go with their views on that score.

What did the Watts riots accomplish? What about Detroit, DC, Baltimore, Cleveland? Absolutely nothing. If anything the Detroit riots helped spur white fight. It strikes me as pure laziness to rewrite history in this fashion.

Nobody was making an argument that all violent riots work. According to the study posted in this topic, 26% of violent riots end up impacting real social and legal change. Thus, if you exhaust other alternatives for decades, people inevitably will turn to violence because sometimes they work and sometimes there is just no patience for even one more day of murdered children. That's not rewriting history - that's facing the harsh reality of what history tells us even when its conclusion is something that isn't personally morally satisfying to us. That's a much more difficult thing to do.

Nobody is making any arguments that one should try violence before nonviolence. Nobody is making any moral arguments about how "good" violent riots are. We are making factual arguments about the indisputable reality that violent riots work sometimes, and they are often the last resort of desperate people who have been ignored for far too long by those in power. This problem has existed since this countries founding. Police have been at the center of enforcing every fucked up racist law that has ever existed in this country. That's a lot of fucking patience. If it makes you uncomfortable to face down the fact that this is going to happen time and time again when shit like this is allowed to continue for this length of time, I don't know what to tell you. Scream "grassroots" some more and perhaps reality will alter itself for you.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

The US examples listed in the OP and others that come to mind didn't achieve anything concrete, that's a very disingenuous and non historical post. Stonewall didn't change policy. You can argue it inspired gay people to better organize but there's no evidence that wouldn't happen without Stonewall.

Nor does the Blair Mountain example seem historical. 15-16 years later progress was achieved in a different industry? Ok.

What did the Watts riots accomplish? What about Detroit, DC, Baltimore, Cleveland? Absolutely nothing. If anything the Detroit riots helped spur white fight. It strikes me as pure laziness to rewrite history in this fashion.

Violence works in a variety of political ways, sure. I would not deny that. But absolutely nothing has been accomplished by modern "race" riots in the US. Burning down your own businesses doesn't achieve anything. Not voting in local elections sure as hell doesn't achieve anything. Ferguson increased their voter participation this year...to 30%. That's still pathetic. I would imagine that Baltimore's local election participation rate is lower. Why should their mayor worry about backlash due to her calling people thugs - they don't vote. A lot of power is being ceded in inner cities - not just when it comes to judges and sheriffs, but also school boards and municipalities.

I see a lot of rage and anger, which is understandable. But I don't really see any concrete movements to change things on a grassroots level. Getting hashtags trending and verbally annihilating bad posters on GAF isn't changing shit. I'm not saying people should stop doing those things, I'm saying that there is a pretty clear blueprint for starting change on a grassroots level and it is NOT being implemented in these cities.

The point is that riots and violent revolution can work and they occur because the people feel they have little other way to get their point across. It has nothing to do with it being the most effective method. And like, at tops 50% of people vote in the election for the leader of their own country, why are you expecting high voter turnout for a local election. Why should the only way to avoid fucking racial profiling and getting killed by the cops be voting in an election?

 

[PBalfredo]

It's simply incorrect. They do work as a solution, 26% of the time. That's factually what those statistics mean. You can't make up bullshit because you don't like the way it sounds.



That's over a 1 in 4 chance of it succeeding if attempted. For nonviolence, it's a 1 in 2 chance. Statistically a 1 in 4 chance is considered quite large. Now let's say you tried nonviolence for years, decades and more and it didn't work. Nothing has changed. That's what has happened here.

What happens is people turn to more radical solutions, because the reward for finding some way to end the horrible injustices is in their mind worth the cost of turning to more extreme methods. And it's a hard argument to make that it's not when over and over people's children are slaughtered mercilessly by police who then never get prosecuted because the justice system is fundamentally broken. And then have a government ignore all your pleas to fix this issue since this country was founded. In any historical context you can think of, eventually things like that lead to violence. It's a sad state of affairs, it's tragic but it's a human thing and ignoring the problem is what led to this end. You can abhor it, but violence sometimes works. And people turn to it often when they exhaust other options.

None of this is a moral statement. It simply is what it is. We can't change that it happens and it has utility. We just must understand the reasons things like this happen, and why people do turn to this. Because sometimes it works, sometimes they've exhausted all other options, and sometimes it does indeed make a message that people listen to.

To make a simple example for you, let's say you had some form of severe cancer. And you've exhausted all these treatments, and the Doctor only have one last thing they can try. This medication is going to do a number on your body and may have long term repercussions for your health, but you will be able to survive the cancer and live for many more long years. The Doctor says it has a 26% chance of working. Otherwise you almost certainly will die. How many here would try it? I'd wager most people would try it. Those statistics certainly don't seem so tiny any more in the face of the alternative.

A 1-in-2 chance versus a 1-in-4 chance (with sever moral caveats) means the 1-in-2 chance is the solution to take. Your whole doctor analogy is based on the 1-in-2 chance being a 0% chance, meaning your entire basis relies on non-violent protest never working. That's much more egregious than the supposition that violence never works, which you bulk at vigorously. You really think non-violent protest is completely exhausted dead end already with zero possibility of success? When other historic non-violent protests have found success against greater adversity? When this last year has seen the issue of racism in police being thrust into the national consciousness the most it has ever been since Rodney King, and primarily through non-violent protests? That all is a write-off?

 

[SeanR1221]

You're complaining that I granted one of your premises?

You're taking modes of thought developed to help individuals deal with their immediate environment and acting as though it's a useful way to analyze how conflicts in and between aggregate communities, governments, civil institutions, etc. play out. if it isn't evident to you how dubious a move that is intellectually I doubt anything I can say will convince you.

Not complaining, just laughing that you had to throw in the word "assuming." Nothing to assume here. Unless our understanding of behavior radically changes, we know it's useful for individuals.

Now, you're the one assuming. You assume the same principles don't apply to groups for whatever reason.

You also assume organizational behavior management isn't a real thing. Yes, you can predict and control the behavior of groups. Just because people get together doesnt mean all the theory gets thrown out the window. Here, have a metanalysis

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...D_METAANALYSIS_AND_TEST_OF_ALTERNATIVE_MODELS

Just because behavior can be predicted and controlled, doesn't mean you can predict it and control it with 100% accuracy. But we can certainly make accurate, smart guesses.

Care to explain why it can't be applied on a larger scale? Please show me the study done to discredit behavior analysis in large groups, I'd love to see it as I enjoy continuously learning.

Since you referenced my past posts, I seem to have hit a nerve with you. I ask that you take your next response to a PM so we don't derail this thread. I'm prepping for a conference Im presenting at this weekend, but I should be able to get back to you quickly.

 

[TAJ]

Burning down your own businesses doesn't achieve anything.

The white thugs who rioted in Tulsa weren't burning down their own businesses.

 

[legend166]

Can you really argue for violent protest in a nation which had voter turnout of 36% in the most recent elections? Surely before you can have a moral platform for violent protest (which is what this thread is trying to establish) you'd have to show that all other reasonable non-violent options have been exhausted. Clearly that's not even anywhere near close to being the case.

 

[HoJu]

Yeah there was.

Link



Not that it matters either way - hundreds were injured during this period even if we eliminate the police death, which is all that is required to make the point about violent protests.

fair enough. further googling points to deaths there as well.
but still, the fact that violent protests may have worked in some instances in the past doesn't mean that they work for every issue. it doesn't mean that we shouldn't condemn those who commit the acts today.

it's just unfortunate how they overshadow the causes of the protests.

 

[Zoned]

Show me an example of war that was won through peace and not violence. Protests can be won by either peace or violence, but to condemn violence as ineffective is ridiculous

Gandhi satyagraha movement in India against British.

 

[Jacob]

the Rodney King riots sure did change the way the cops behave

Actually, it did have a number of long-reaching effects on the LAPD.

http://www.policemag.com/blog/patrol-tactics/story/2012/04/the-l-a-riot-20-years-later.aspx

Gandhi satyagraha movement in India against British.

Gandhi was only one part of the Indian independence movement and the violent elements of the movement played just as important a role in convincing the British to leave. Part of the reason Gandhi's faction was allowed to negotiate with the British was because the alternative scared the British even more.

http://web.archive.org/web/20121012...uneindia.com/2006/20060212/spectrum/main2.htm

 

[way more]

Burning down your own businesses doesn't achieve anything.

Evidently it does 25% of the time. And that's only 25% less than non-violent protests.

 

[CrazyDude]

Actually, it did have a number of long-reaching effects on the LAPD.

http://www.policemag.com/blog/patrol-tactics/story/2012/04/the-l-a-riot-20-years-later.aspx

Yet their are still cases of unarmed people dieing from them.

 

[Jacob]

Yet their are still cases of unarmed people dieing from them.

No shit? I don't know what point you're trying to make. Yes, there's still progress to be made. Do you think that police brutality would be a thing of the past if the Rodney King riots had never happened?

 

[CrazyDude]

No shit? I don't know what point you're trying to make. Yes, there's still progress to be made. Do you think that police brutality would be a thing of the past if the Rodney King riots had never happened?

No, but since it didn't change things, the only outcome was the destruction.

 

[Wynnebeck]

This thread.

What are you trying to say?

 

[HoJu]

What are you trying to say?

discussion is bad.

 

[Jacob]

No, but since it didn't change things, the only outcome was the destruction.

That is demonstrably untrue. Read the link in my earlier post.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

What are you trying to say?

I think it's obvious. Just ignore it.

 

[Dude Abides]

Not complaining, just laughing that you had to throw in the word "assuming." Nothing to assume here. Unless our understanding of behavior radically changes, we know it's useful for individuals.

Now, you're the one assuming. You assume the same principles don't apply to groups for whatever reason.

You also assume organizational behavior management isn't a real thing. Yes, you can predict and control the behavior of groups. Just because people get together doesnt mean all the theory gets thrown out the window. Here, have a metanalysis

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...D_METAANALYSIS_AND_TEST_OF_ALTERNATIVE_MODELS

Just because behavior can be predicted and controlled, doesn't mean you can predict it and control it with 100% accuracy. But we can certainly make accurate, smart guesses.

Care to explain why it can't be applied on a larger scale? Please show me the study done to discredit behavior analysis in large groups, I'd love to see it as I enjoy continuously learning.

Since you referenced my past posts, I seem to have hit a nerve with you. I ask that you take your next response to a PM so we don't derail this thread. I'm prepping for a conference Im presenting at this weekend, but I should be able to get back to you quickly.

That link is to a study regarding how to motivate individual employees within an organization so it doesn't stand for the proposition you say it does. Since we apparently agree that ABA's focus and usefulness is on individual behaviors, I don't think it's my burden to demonstrate the fallacy of composition but rather on you on to either disprove it or show that it doesn't apply here.

 

[Amir0x]

A 1-in-2 chance versus a 1-in-4 chance (with sever moral caveats) means the 1-in-2 chance is the solution to take. Your whole doctor analogy is based on the 1-in-2 chance being a 0% chance, meaning your entire basis relies on non-violent protest never working. That's much more egregious than the supposition that violence never works, which you bulk at vigorously.

No, that's not what my analogy said there. Although I have to admit your misinterpretations are beginning to be super entertaining.

Firstly, in my analogy you tried the 1-in-2 (nonviolent) chance solutions. That's why this is the only option left. If they had worked, you wouldn't have turned to the solution with smaller odds. Much like people who see injustices existing for hundreds of years, eventually you begin to believe you must exercise alternative methods to fix your "cancer." If the "cancer" is bad enough, you'll try virtually any method if it offers some decent odds of solving the problem - even if there are negative side effects.

This is not a "supposition" that nonviolence doesn't work. It works 53% of the time, according to the study. So that means it fails the rest of the time. By definition that means nearly 50% of the time you're going to need to find another solution. If children are being murdered and no justice is being dealt for hundreds of years, guess what? They're going to try those other options. That's not a moral statement, which it's clear by your comical emotional overreactions that you keep believing this is. It just is a statement of reality. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept that it works sometimes and you have to deal with it that this is the natural result of people being ignored no matter what methods they tried for decades at a time. And that's the only argument being advanced in this thread by me.

You really think non-violent protest is completely exhausted dead end already with zero possibility of success? When other historic non-violent protests have found success against greater adversity? When this last year has seen the issue of racism in police being thrust into the national consciousness the most it has ever been since Rodney King, and primarily through non-violent protests? That all is a write-off?

If I thought that, I would have made that argument. I am not making a moral argument or a statement about how much nonviolence works vs. violence, the only reason we even got specific is because someone posted a study so I could post exacting numbers like that. My only argument was that violence does sometimes work, despite posters who keep trying to argue otherwise. My argument was that it sometimes work, that it doesn't always obfuscate the message of the protesters and that it is the natural result of decades of being ignored by those in power. That is my only arguments.

So you're consistently arguing with a phantom, because it's certainly not me. All that said, if I am to comment on your specific question despite not making these arguments at all, I would say... you can't remove this chunk of time from the reality of how long this problem has really been going on. This issue has been going on since law enforcement have been a thing in this country. They enforced every racist law. They've killed blacks in disproportionate numbers in every single generation. They sat idly by as white southerners lynched blacks in front of them, and sometimes they participated in that too. They kidnapped blacks and killed them. They beat nonviolent blacks to a bloody fucking pulp during the civil rights movement. And here we are, the year 2015 - and it's still happening. This has been a cycle. It has been "major news" every couple of years, and every time nothing ends up happening.

So if you're asking me, I would say: I understand why we're here. I don't know how many times you think people are going to be expected to wait for change before they turn to such extreme solutions, but I suspect you think the answer is "forever." Well, when it's your son who gets murdered, we'll talk about that then. But until that point, all I can say is: I understand. I know why we're here. I grasp precisely why violence is the method being turned to now. That's not a moral statement. It's simply where we are.

 

[theignoramus]

I am sorry, but no. Rioting and looting are very ineffective and at best produce superficial results. Sure, laws might be changed, but that is all you are doing. You are not earning the respect of other people and certainly not being the bigger man. You are just adding more fuel to how racists view you. There are other ways you can make your voices heard. Looting and resorting to unnecessary violence simply aren't some of those ways.

Hahaha, I love this naive view that a well behaved black somehow gets immunity from social and institutional discrimination. That black guy from Michigan cops beat the shit out of and planted crack on was a "well behaved" tax paying citizen. He still got his head kicked in.

 

[SeanR1221]

That link is to a study regarding how to motivate individual employees within an organization so it doesn't stand for the proposition you say it does. Since we apparently agree that ABA's focus and usefulness is on individual behaviors, I don't think it's my burden to demonstrate the fallacy of composition but rather on you on to either disprove it or show that it doesn't apply here.

Check your PMs