Thanks for this. We do need to get to that spot, I think.
I, for one, am very happy and encouraged that the rioting seems to be limited to the usual sorts of hotheads.
Once upon a time I visited the state fair and in the farm animal exhibit it appeared to be nap time for dozens of baby ducklings. Except for one. This little hyper-active fuzz-head was running rampant all over the pen, trampling on top of his little cousins and siblings. A little concerning for ducky mental health if it hadn’t been so hilarious.
One of the riot videos I saw showed something similar. He appeared to be an anarchist-type ('scuse the profiling for brevity) running with the pack. And every chance he got he kicked something, threw something. His behavior didn’t seem to be infectious. And that’s something different.
The Walmart looters? They weren’t about Martin. Riding on political coat-tails. No grieving there - big grins and celebration of being naughty.
I might add that most of what I have read on this message board has maintained a fair level of civil discourse as well. Whoopee. Good place to be while both sides were spitting venom on each other all over the web.
That’s fine. But frankly, that’s not at all the impression I got from the Q&A at the beginning of this thread, especially considering that the poll had options for “limited” and “wide scale.” I would venture that even sven’s definition is “wide scale” rioting.
But the OP asks if there will be limited rioting, wide-scale rioting, or no rioting. Honesty replies:
Given the availability of limited, wide-scale, or no rioting, it sure seems to me that this answre predicts NO rioting, period, not even limited rioting.
Am I reading this wrongly?
It seems to me a better answer would be: “Apart from the usual hotheads that will go wild for any lame reason, there will be no rioting - nothing at all serious.”
Only someone trying to equate the two issues to sow doubt would believe that media reports of what is actually happening is racist and comparable to speculation about what might happen by a group of people based on their race. My question to you is, what do you hope to gain from this line of thinking? Are you trying to get people to equate blacks with riots? For what purpose?
And I have put no words in people’s mouths regarding their idle speculation. There are people on Fox who clearly worried about race riots prior to the verdict. Those aren’t made up, go look it up because I’m not going to do your homework for you :rolleyes:
And I have no problems with this scenario. I don’t think your example here differs at all from what I said
Now, contrary to the qualifiers offered by even sven and others, I (and the headline writers for this NBC station) have no problem calling this a riot. It didn’t involve burning buildings or tens of thousands of dollars in property damage. But it’s a riot, and everyone is comfortable calling it a riot.
The riots out in Oakland have been outed by one local news source as starting with local “Communists” (who are primarily white & middle aged) and another source as the violence being caused by Anarchists (again, who are said to be white). So yes, the demonstration sin Oakland are mostly by young black men, who may indeed indulge in some window breaking, etc. But the cause of any of these mostly peaceful demonstrations seems to be agitators who the sources say are white.
So, thus according to the various news source, the ‘riot” part (in the Oakland area0 is caused not by blacks, but by outside white agitators taking advantage of the anger. Which is flamed by the completely incompetent Oakland PD.
Then it doesn’t fit the OP, so what’s all the fuss about?
And, yes, assuming a RACE riot by the race you are not a part of is racism. The entire implication is that black people are so inferior that they, unlike white people, will riot over it.
And will people ever realize that it doesn’t matter if it winds up being true? Just like it doesn’t matter if that black guy really was a rapist if the reason why you avoided him was because he was black. The a priori assumption that black people will riot because of a verdict they don’t like is racist.
Not that this matters, anyways, as this wasn’t about Martin and wasn’t a race riot. It doesn’t fit the OP. So I am perfectly fine in predicting no riots even if you call this a riot.
And, yes, I personally had always assumed that a riot meant at least two different groups being involved. I find it odd that the definition in the dictionary is so inclusive.
Coming back after a short walk to clarify something. Note, I did leave the OP a little wiggle room to claim he wasn’t talking about a race riot. But, by referencing a riot commonly regarded as a race riot, I can understand someone assuming that was what he was claiming.
Still, assuming Bricker is correct, this was not a riot about the case. If the OP had put in an option that there would be a riot but it would not actually be related to the case, I’d have probably voted for that. There are always some groups that will take the opportunity of a protest to start a riot. But, given the options, the no-riot choice made the most sense.
The question I believe is still up for discussion is: was it also true? (See my David Duke scenario in post 79).
I pointed to the US Surfing Open riots to show the type of disturbance that is called a “riot” in other circumstances. If a disturbance of this type is uncontroversially called a riot, then I argue readers should accept that the Martin-related protests that turned violent are also, fairly, called riots. In other words, I am arguing that a No True Scotsman fallacy is being applied to disturbances – they are “riots” unless they are related to the Zimmerman verdict.
