I think some definitions might help. There is a big difference between riot, protest, and political disobedience.
And even different kinds of riots. Do “protesters” INTEND to riot, or does a peaceful demonstration become a riot following official intervention/response? The latter might be more justified than the former.
So the people who were smashing windows and burning cars and attacking police didn’t what to do? It sounds like they knew exactly what they were doing.
FWIW:
This reminds me of a story I read in an old book called “Four Letter Word Games”, I believe.
Some tribe was dealing with a drought, and no amount of pleading, etc to their god(s) had any effect.
So, they endeavored to perform various taboo breaking acts in order to get the god(s)’ attention.
Better hated than ignored.
Correct on both counts. Knowing what to do and knowing what you’re doing are two different things.
And it’s true that some riots are planned and organized, as a cover for profitable crime like burglary. In those cases, the organizers aren’t panicking. But most of the people involved still are.
In my city of Seattle there is a known group of anarchists who will engage in this behavior and typically they are not marching for the cause.
In many cases it is used to poison the well and invalidate the core ideas behind the protest. The media attention probably also creates a feedback loop for those who just want to go out and commit some “ultra-violence” style activities.
Not to defend violence, but when it comes to getting your message out, you need to get on the front page, and if it bleeds it leads.
In the time of MLK and Ghandi peaceful protests could work because the opposition could be goaded into overreacting. So if a bunch of bigots can be seen busting peaceful civil rights protesters with bricks, it makes the news, the reason for your protest enters to national conversation and you have the advantage of holding the moral high ground.
Now days the police are much smarter about these things, so a peaceful civil disobedience will be arrested efficiently and quietly, the protesters pay bail and get out a few hours later and no one pays the least bit of attention. On the other hand when you riot and breakstuff, yes you get mass condemnation from all sides, but you also get in the news. From there people start asking what would make you do such a thing, and whether although your tactics were deplorable, there might not be something to your grievances.
I’m not sure that without the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, the BLM would be such a large part of the national conversation. Similarly although the Occupy Wall streeters and the Bundyites were both regarded with derision, they did start people talking about inequality, and access to federal lands more than they would standing around holding up signs some Sunday afternoon.
Note: this analysis really doesn’t explain the anti-Trump protests which is already a big part of the national conversation whether or not there is violence. But some people may have seen violence work in other circumstances and misunderstand when it does and doesn’t work.
We’ve gone over this a bit WRT BLM but rioting is not justifiable in a functioning democracy. It is particular unacceptable if the rioters are rioting because they object to the results of that functioning democracy.
It seems that rioting, when occuring in a land we recently “liberated,” isn’t too bad:
from Donald Rumsfeld himself:
One of the few times I agree with Don…
Of course, when it occurs here - also due to decades of repression - it’s not a good thing. Yeah…
Of course, their whole point is a quibble on what the words mean. Is that democracy *functioning *if age-old prejudices take the form of a disproportionate amount of gunplay in interactions between police and negroes ? Is that democracy truly *functioning *when it gives power to a demagogue who openly scorns not just his adversaries but his supporters as well ; and pretty much broadcasts his intention to loot and sell out the country for all its still worth yet ?
[QUOTE=Buck Godot]
In the time of MLK and Ghandi peaceful protests could work because the opposition could be goaded into overreacting. So if a bunch of bigots can be seen busting peaceful civil rights protesters with bricks, it makes the news, the reason for your protest enters to national conversation and you have the advantage of holding the moral high ground.
[/QUOTE]
That’s still true. The problem isn’t that the opposition cannot be shown to be overreacting (remember the OWS pepper spraying cop ?) - it’s that even if it does, and even when it’s widespread… nobody gives a fuck any more. Because the other side has become frighteningly good at the “they deserved it !” counter-narrative. Even if it means turning one incident of one guy taking one dump on one police car into a representative of the whole of the movement.
Comparing this to postwar Iraq is like comparing a paper cut to a beheading. Yeah, they are both bleeding, but that’s about as far as it goes.
I suppose it’s the same rationale for punching a bigger, tougher bully in the face, even though he will probably stomp your ass. It sends a message that you won’t be pushed around without incurring some risk yourself and you aren’t afraid of the consequences.
Although I feel like rioting is less of a planned response as it is an emotional response to some perceived injustice (or your team winning the World Series).
Which one is which? The centuries of Black oppression or the centuries of conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims?
Maybe they don’t think democracy is “functioning” for them? As I mentioned to a fellow straight, white, affluent Trump supporter friend of mine who said people should “get over the results”, it’s easy to say that when the results don’t threaten your ability to marry who you want to, stay in the country, make choices related to reproduction or not get shot by the cops for being the wrong color.
The one you don’t understand.
Therein lies the rub. Many of the protesters and rioters refused to respect the result of the vote. Remember all those ‘Not my president’ placards?
As I understand it, in the US a criminal conviction can mean you forfeit your right to vote. That sounds like a reasonable punishment for those who don’t respect democracy.
But that said, protesting is a central part of democracy. People have been protesting presidents, including inaugurations, for quite a while. IIRC, people were burning effigies of Jefferson because they thought he was an atheist, Frenchified wimp that would ruin the country. And from what I understand of Jefferson’s more radical views, he’d have been fine with it in principle even if he wouldn’t have personally appreciated it.
So over the arch of American history, the degree of protests against the result of the election may or may not be higher without a fundamental difference in substance.
I thought the topic was rioting? 
The quoted user mentioned protesting along with rioting, so he seemed to be making a more general point.
So does this also apply to places like Baltimore where people were rioting in a city with a black mayor, a black police chief, a majority black city council, 43% of the cops (and the majority of its top commanders) are black.
Democracy doesn’t protect us from stupidity.
And sometimes people see small clips and make judgments without knowing the whole story. Those kids weren’t just sitting there in peaceful protest.
I posted this video before and I will do so again because it is difficult to find video of the entire incident rather than just a video of the pepperspraying.
After giving 3 or 4 verbal warnings, the police remove tents and arrest people who try to stop them from clearing out the tents. Then at about 3:40, they begin to leave. Beginning at about 4:20 the remaining crowd begin to surround the police an demand the release of the arrestees. At about 7:00 and again at 8:10 the protesters start chanting “if you let them go, we will let you leave”. Police proceed to tell each of the protesters that they are going to get sprayed if they don’t let the cops leave. Then after the pepperspraying the protesters start chanting “you can go”
If you watch the whole video and still feel that the police were being unreasonable in that situation, then please tell me what you think the police should have done.
I can defend the police actions in tat video. Can you defend the students’ actions?
NOTHING you just mentioned is a symptom of a failed democratic process, it is a result of Republicans winning the election.
And how would you propose changing our democratic system to achieve a more just system (and not just one where you get what you want).
Like I said, the protest is about the results of the democratic process not the mechanics of the democratic process. We live in a functional democracy and we have a history of electing people from both ends of the political spectrum. Why do you suddenly think its broken?
Ask me again in 4 years if I think the democratic process is broken…assuming it’s still functional.
Except you actually can make things much worse. Particularly since your chance of making the “right” decision while panicking is usually pretty slim.
I can understand protesting. I can even understand rioting. But one thing I just can’t support is the idea of vandalizing and pillaging innocent, unrelated, 3rd-party businesses and shops. Even black people smashing Korean businesses in the 1990s LA riots made sense, since a Korean had shot and killed a black shoplifter. But rioters smashing completely innocent, unrelated, shops and stores, just for the sake of it?
