In the lefitst narrative it is often portrayed as a cry for help and a reach out from the suppressed unprivileged masses. Examples are scant, from Paris to London to Scandinavia.
Now, are there any solid fact about these social “eruptions”. People from the left often want to claim the very troublemakers to be the victims and are only doing what is right, and want to be hear. Would I be wrong to say that in the latest riots (lets say from 2000 and beyond), were instigated by opportun thugs, without any greater Cause (besides stealing Nikes). And that the police should just stomp em ouy like any other criminal activity.
Vague claims from anonymous “leftists”. Can you give us a specific example or cite?
Let them eat cake!
In short, was the lastest rioting (in northern Europe; paris, london etc.) morally justified in any sense? Or just partaken by opportun dreg?
The riots were defended by misc leftist - they were always very quick to find a social cause and a justifier. I.e " its bad to burn cars - but that is what they had to do in order to get heard" vs “lets get som free Nikes!”
Keep massaging, scam, you’ll find a topic eventually.
No, it was not morally justified in any sense.
Why can’t they be both, like the late Earl Warren?
Cites to people who said precisely what you have quoted? Emphasis added.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you found some random people in the intertubes who said something like that, but hows about some people who actually set policy or matter in some substantial way…?
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that this isn’t about how you “feel” that liberals think. So why don’t you post your quotes from “leftists” defending riots as a valid form of expression and then we can talk about them.
Who cares?
If he can’t find at least one leftist on a blog, Twitter, or somewhere else on the Internet that says what he claims then he is doing something wrong. Then we’ll just get into a pointless argument about whether finding one person who said it meets his criteria for “The riots were defended by misc leftist - they were always very quick to find a social cause and a justifier.” We’ll also get into other debates like who qualifies as a leftist in this case, and then argue about whether liberals are leftists and vice versa.
If someone actually wants to debate those things, we should start with it rather than being distracted by this opening post that starts by building straw men.
When the founding fathers dumped tons of East India Company tea into Boston Harbor, were they criminals?
I think we’re done here.
When the suburbs erupt into flames and violence, the rioters must be really, really determined. A riot is really an on-foot kinda thing; hard to carry it off in a neighborhood not built to walkable scale.
Yes, but that is what they had to do in order to get heard.
Meh. The OP could, if he tried, come up with some liberal saying something to that effect. I’ve seen that sort of thing before, too. The OP generalizes it to ‘this is the way liberals think’. I generalize it to ‘there’s no idea (political or otherwise) that’s so sensible and obviously true, that you can’t find at least one idiot or loon who accepts it, and there’s no idea that’s so obviously foolish and false that you can’t find at least one otherwise intelligent person who accepts it’.
Sometimes these things happen because the minority is genuinely oppressed and are lashing out against authority.
Sometimes they happen because the minority is angry and are lashing out against anything within reach.
Sometimes they happen because a large enough group get together to break things and steal stuff, and others join in because they think they can get away with it in the confusion.
Not all riots are equal.
Some riots are quiet.
Yet oddly enough make you feel the noize. It’s quite puzzling.
It’s been a long time since I’ve been in Scandinavia, but I saw no suppressed, unprivileged masses. Not even a few.
I did see people in desperate need in Paris, but I suspect that some of that had to do with drugs or alcohol. There were other groups that seemed to be considered “outsiders.”
The USA has far more needy people on the scene than I saw elsewhere, but I’ve travelled only in Western Europe. Most of the homeless here in the US are children. They don’t show up on the streets as much.
Have you heard of any place in the United States where the unemployment rate is 70%? There is at least one county that I know of that tries to survive like that. I think the life expectancy is something like 47%. In America. The land of plenty.
Do you know what “scant” means or am I just misreading your sentence?