oh no, I only have a 47% chance of life.
Sounds like a flyover county.
Vandalism, manipulating the market to their own advantage - probably so, if one wants to be technical about it.
Until someone opens the box. Then the wave function collapses and you’ll be either alive or dead. 
Wasn’t it decided that the whole collapse thing is just a fragment of our imagination? Or am I imagining that?
No. Forget it. It’s better I don’t know. 
Yes, they all happen in areas with one or more severe social problems, low employment, low social mobility, poor relations between substantial parts of the population and authority figures, etc.
I’m sure you can find someone saying they’re only doing what’s right, but a more honest analysis would be that lots of people of various political opinions look at the aforementioned solid facts and discuss possible ways to change them. I suppose the rightmost view of those acknowledging reality would be that these factors aren’t the result of anything the government should have a hand in, or are the result of mishandling of immigration by the left, and that the only response should be hard and police based, but ignoring the underlying social factors completely is just daft.
I don’t know. I suppose it’s possible, but that’s a different question than what fuels the rioters once it’s started. And it’s not like anyone is calling this an organised effort with a democratically agreed upon Cause. It’s not like the kids in Sweden are all part of “The movement to end racial profiling in Swedish suburbs by wild and random acts of vandalism”. You’re also begging the question of whether looting is a significant part of these riots.
If you ignore every possible social factor leading up to these riots I suppose that could be a conclusion, but an obvious reality of these riots is they’re very difficult to “just stomp out”, so looking at other factors than “There just happens to be thousands of young men who like setting fires and stealing Nikes” seems a good additional approach.
The Guardian got a lot of criticism after recent UK riots for “justifying” the looting and violence through socio-economic argument (not to say it’s not valid, but it pissed off a lot of people on the right).
This is typical of the sort of comment from the British left…
To be fair, a lot of Guardian commentary is just wank.
To be fair they do quote one looter saying “We’re not all gathering together for a cause, we’re running down Foot Locker.”
If the unemployment rate in your county is 70%, that might be a good time to, you know, move to a different county.
That assumes that they can afford to move.
Maybe we can apply for some government subsidies to put in a light rail system, or at least run a shuttle bus service for the rioters.
The London Riots started from a cause - the shooting of a black man by Metropolitan Police officers in Tottenham. The initial riot / march was because of a community outraged by a perceived evil against one of their own (albeit a drug dealer, who as far as the evidence points was on his way, with a gun, to kill someone over a debt)
Don’t forget, being black in London used to be a crime not all that long ago, at least according to how the Met policed back then. Institutional racism of the Met has a long history, and is only recently kinda-sorta being fixed. It’s not surprising that the community reacted with rage against this perceived repeat of the bad old days.
The ongoing riots then became something else, became simple criminal mischief by a minority of younger people and opportunistic looting of shops and stores, but it did require a spark.
The fact of the matter is, sometimes towns just die. This isn’t a sign that something is wrong - it’s just the way things work. The only thing you can do is gather your things and start anew somewhere else.
I can as an objective bystander confirm that there is a leftist narrativa simmilar to what he describes, and that sometimes these events are used by people who represent the left. I happen to sympathize with the former, but don’t agree with the latter. Basically I like the people who do it and agree with the intentions (making a better world…), but I don’t think that perspective brings any solutions. In fact I think it is often counter productive when it comes to how we organisa our physical enviroment. The good intention of providing affordable housing solved the housing problem, but also created the ghettos. The mechanics behind that are not described accurately in ideological statements, at least not according to me. I think there is a scientific analysis that explains it better, I just wish to understand it.
added on edit: If my word is not good enough I can link to several statements, blog posts etc from Swedish politicians in the Socialist party.
Afford to move? How they hell can they afford to stay?
Are you saying this is like the Rodney King riots?
Is English your first language?:dubious: I only ask because your posts are hard to read.
I think there is a difference between saying that the rioting was a natural consequence of the suppression of the masses, versus saying it was morally justified.
As an example if you start insulting a drunk burly biker dude, and get punched in the face, I wouldn’t say that the biker was justified in punching you, but I might say that it was a natural consequence of your behavior.
Note: I’m not taking one side of the other on the whether or not rioting is in fact a natural consequence of suppression, I’m just trying to outline the distinction, between moral justification and natural consequence.
What causes cities to thrive or fail is not inexplicable, but a scientific area that has been researched for a long time. Just because most people do not understand it, doesn’t mean it can’t be explained. It just happens to be very complex processes.
I suppose Righties gotta go to war and bomb some foreign little brown people on a total pretence or power steal, and Lefties gotta do it at home.
Passports, its all down to passports