#BlackLivesMatter

[Mari]

You are putting the life of a human being on the same level as smashed windows with that. That is still the same perspective, you're just adding filler.

[liamhernandezlucas]

Assuming two things are unacceptable doesn't mean assuming they are equally so.

I would never suggest smashing windows should be punished nearly as severely as murder should be, nor would I ever suggest property damage is as bad as death.

That doesn't mean I can't condemn both as crimes that shouldn't occur.

[VibrantFox]

Regarding your stance on the destruction of property I want you to look at these two videos. (A warning for language in the video from now this though in all fairness this woman's anger is completely justified) Politely asking that you watch both and hear their message.

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1268151193437474817

https://twitter.com/sarahchaffers/status/1267657420685312005

Also a note that I don't want to derail this thread nor do I want to see it shut down like other topics related to diversity have been (which it feels like it happens a lot) just want to attempt to bring up some points and direct to certain info that are related.

[liamhernandezlucas]

Seeing these two talk is such a breath of fresh air compared to what I've seen pass by on Twitter. It's a relief, honestly.

I think there's an argument to be made that a lot of police officers are in a difficult position, and a lot of the bad actions by police in these situations shouldn't be ascribed to all police officers. I haven't seen anybody make the argument that the police is evil, aside from the same people calling for violence and looting, but it is worth noting that it can't be easy to be assigned to crowd control. At least for someone trying to be decent.

[MiloNelakho]

I think there's an argument to be made that a lot of police officers are in a difficult position, and a lot of the bad actions by police in these situations shouldn't be ascribed to all police officers.

It's not being ascribed to any one police officer, it's being pinned on the system that encourages state-sanctioned violence against black people and shields both the perpetrators in the police force and exempts those in the force who stand quietly by and allow it to happen. The "good cop" argument frames police brutality as isolated incidents of bad cops abusing a neutral system, when actually it is an inherently unjust system that all police officers hide behind and collect pay cheques from.

Assuming two things are unacceptable doesn't mean assuming they are equally so.

I would never suggest smashing windows should be punished nearly as severely as murder should be, nor would I ever suggest property damage is as bad as death.

That doesn't mean I can't condemn both as crimes that shouldn't occur.

"It's unacceptable a man was murdered, even more so if it was because of something as petty as racism,but looting is still unacceptable because it's a crime and it targets innocent people, and doesn't seem very useful towards fixing the problem."

By condemning both in the same conversation, you are equating them, though. It doesn't matter if you think one should be more severely punished than the other if both get equal focus in a discussion about the effects of institutionalised racism.

"It's unfortunate that another black man was murdered but looting is unacceptable" try going "It's unfortunate that looting happens but another black man murdered is unacceptable"

Also, on this... this kind of statement is also sitting on a fence, because while it condemns George Floyd's murder, it also critiques the reaction of protestors as if destruction of property exists in the same conversation as destruction of lives. Even there, with all the evidence out of protests being seeded with instigators so police forces can escalate measures to shut them down, calling the looting unfortunate is incomplete because it doesn't acknowledge why the looting is framed as important in the media to begin with. It's because it invalidates and criminalises the protests, despite the mountain of evidence showing police espionage and uneducated fringe groups hijacking protests by needlessly escalating.

[RatTastic]

I just wanted to add some things since I currently study sociology (though please don't take this as me picking a fight or something! I just wanted to add my own two cents on the topic).
Systemic problems are very difficult as it's a complete web of overlapping problems. While I myself oppose violence, it's a bit difficult to say that revolutions with violent results throughout history haven't contributed to an overhaul of an oppressive system. Systemic change is not something solved by a singular movement, instead many of the changes society has undergone are results of countless years of actions, be they peaceful or not. In fact, things that seemingly seem so innocent can be a result of some form of violent struggle from the past. And even when forms of protests are achieved, be they peaceful or not, there is still a huge chance that only a different form of oppression take power (This is coming from a country that boasts a prominent peaceful protest, only to have equally corrupt officials and regimes follow in the next years) if no significant action follow.

The black lives movement is a result of years of systemic oppression that presents itself in so many facets of society. I can't say much more on their situation as I am in a completely far,far away country, but I can say that years of overflowing emotion can lead to rather drastic actions from the oppressed group. There are plenty of explanations that present why revolutions and riots come about, but one is somewhere along the lines of growing gap between the oppressors and the oppressed , and the political climate of which it occurs in. And from what I've observed, America's political climate is rather messy right now, especially with the virus thing going on. But this is doesn't even cover how things like political opportunities and resources affect how movements act.

In every political movement there is almost always some form of disagreement in how their respective issues should be approached. Nonetheless, there is something to be taken from viewing and understanding why and how it is they come to those conclusions. At the end of the day,it is important to listen to the people who directly experience these things. Their narratives are extremely important in identifying the multiple causes and approaches we may take both as individuals and as a collective. So I do hope that we should be careful in presenting different forms of protests as black and white, as there are a lot of nuances to the issue.

This is by no means an attack and invalidation of OP's feelings. And please don't say that you seem whiny! Those are totally valid feelings and no one has the right to tell you that what you're feeling is whiny or invalid! It truly is a terrifying position to be in, and I truly hope that no more violence will take place. I wish for you and your family's safety. I'm incredibly sorry you have to go through something as terrible as this

(I'd just like to say this isn't a form of attack or anything... I just had some things I wanted to add. Sorry if this ended up being long. The tl;dr is just that institutionalized racism is a very complex topic that can't be boiled down to a single solution)

[Harmony-S-S]

Thank you, and I know I may sound naive with posting this topic, but I just needed to get it out of me. I know that there are a lot of different things going on. A 6 year old lost her father in the cruelest way, and I just can't get that out of my head.

[liamhernandezlucas]

I'm not sure how saying two things are bad in short succession means saying they're equally bad, especially when taking care to use different ways to describe that badness?

Is it so strange to say a these two things are both negatives?

I'm genuinely confused how any of us have equated murder and looting as being equal crimes.

If anything, I'm trying to say that the looters are hurting the good message the protestors want to convey. That in no way suggests that it's the same as murder.

[liamhernandezlucas]

That's a very mature description of the situation.
Thank you for that.

[KoreanTacos]

The movement means nothing if you dont express your thoughts, dont feel ashamed for speaking up. Theres people out there who have the same mindset and they are just as validated to speak up imo

[MiloNelakho]

It's about framing. When the looting and the killing of a black man are presented in the same conversation around criminality, you pair them on an equal platform. It's both-side-ism, which always serves to destabalise the most pressing of the two things being considered, in this case, police brutality. That perspective is formed with a bird's-eye-view approach, which means you aren't engaging from the perspective of those affected by institutional anti-black systems. That perspective makes it really hard to trust that any conversation is had in good faith. The armchair diplomat approach to racism is anti-black.

[liamhernandezlucas]

People try to justify the looting by mentioning the murder. Therefore, people will assume you endorse the murder when condemning the looting. Therefore, if you want to condemn the looting AND condemn the murder, it is necessary to adress the topic of the murder when adressing the topic of the looting and violence.

Consider these possible responses someone can give and the assumptions many would make:
-I endorse the looting
(and condemn the murder)
-I condemn the looting
(and endorse the murder)
-I condemn the looting and condemn the murder

The only way to make it clear that you think the murder is a bad thing when expressing the looting is a bad thing, is to mention it in the same argument. To assume they are of the same value is a fallacy of the interpretor, not a fallacy of the speaker.

I'm talking from an anti-violence ideological perspective.
I'm not a pacifist, but I will argue against violence or crime when I think said violence or crime is unnecessary or unhelpful.

I don't see how being opposed to violent retaliation should be considered anti-black. Violent action is hurting the momentum of the non-violent protestors, and slowing down the power of their message.

Careful consideration is something a lot of people could stand to have.

[vothnthorvaldson]

My European/North American ass read your disagreement as mostly a Europe/US cultural difference. That's jumped to my eyes so much (but I'm extra-sensitive to that) that I feel like saying it.
1) What's constitute a sophism and what constitute acceptable argumentation in casual conversation varies a bit between these two regions; it leads to MANY misunderstandings.
2) Western Europeans tend to worry about looting etc all the time (even when they support the movement), possibly because the density is high in Europe and many livelihoods can be destruct rapidely (?).
Let's remember these differences when we discuss things, especially such.

[HGohwell]

I'm not going to get too much into the substance of what's going on and system behind it and everything people have been through because I think there are a lot of people better qualified to talk about it that me and I don't want talk on things I'm not qualified to. My position throughout this has been "tell me how to support you and it's something I can do I will".

However, where I can talk is this issue of looting. This in particular.

If anything, I'm trying to say that the looters are hurting the good message the protestors want to convey.

Now, here in the UK a few years back now we had a few big "riots" over the death of a black man in police custody. Stores were looted, fires were set ect. And the message I give to you from this is be very careful about blaming the protester for this. As investigations were done, primarily by insurance companies, it became more and more apparent certain employees and even business owners were taking advantage of the clashes to "steal" stuff from their own stores or the stores and then blame the riots.

Also while it might look like they're hurting a good message, history generally seems disagrees. The French Revolution isn't such a good comparison, as yet the protesters haven't rounded people up for execution, after all. A somewhat better comparison in my opinion (although still by no means perfect) at least from a UK pov is the women's suffrage movement. And who do we remember from that? The suffragists who simply believed women should have votes and tried to make a change from within the confines given to them? No. Most people don't even know that was a thing. History remembers and applauds the suffragettes as heroes. The suffragettes, the militant group who believed their goal meant going around the law, who (and here's a quick run down from wikipedia) "heckled politicians, tried to storm parliament, were attacked and sexually assaulted during battles with the police, chained themselves to railings, smashed windows, set fire to postboxes and empty buildings, set bombs in order to damage churches and property, and faced anger and ridicule in the media" and a lot of that sounds familiar, no? (Disclaimer, I'm not saying the two are the same. I'm simply saying it's a better comparison than the French Revolution and a group venerated by history despite being the side who would be supposedly harming their cause by taking action, many of the actions similar to those seen these days and getting much the same reaction).

[liamhernandezlucas]

It wasn't my intent to imply the protestors are at fault. My apologies that that was unclear. I mean to say that the people who take advantage and start looting, or support said looting, are hurting the credibility and range of the people who are protesting honestly and peacefully.

I definitely agree the suffragists are a better comparison than the French Revolution. It was just the first thing that sprung to mind because my history teachers tried to present the revolution as a positive and skipped over a lot of the bad stuff. I can't say I like the suffragists' methods, but I'm not very well informed as to what their situation was or how much influence they had, so I can't say they were wrong either.

I just believe the violence usually isn't necessary, but the change is.

[LordVincent]

It's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the violence is either caused by the police provoking peaceful protesters (hell, the american government's approach to this in and of itself incites violence and escalation by default), or not actual protesters but rather white supremacists dressed up as protesters trying to make the movement look bad. Don't trust everything you hear right off the bat, bear in mind that there are people with fascist biases willing to do anything to make the movement for black rights fail.

[NickRowler]

In regards to the looting...not all the looting is being done by black protestors or people within the BLM movement. There are some people who are taking advantage of the chaos to loot, be it that they are anti-government or just some edge-lord who wants to do it for the LOLZ. Most of the people who are marching are doing it peacefully yet the media likes to focus on the people who are acting the craziest. One protester in LA said that police who were there for crowd control, did nothing while places were being looted and tagged yet attacked and arrested protesters who were being peaceful yet stayed out pass curfew.

I think the thing that sort of infuriates me is that, it is 100% clear what people want. They want an overhaul of the system and replace with one that doesn't allow police to abuse their position. This is something that is not a new issue, it is something that people have been complaining about for years. And the fact the the US government responds to the protest with brute force and creating narratives that BLM are anti-Christian or anti-American, is disgusting.

[DiegoPalacios]

Around this topic some discussions about either condemning or not condemning looting has happened, so i wanted to share my perspective because my country has been in a tense political tension with riots and looting has happened. (the reasons for the political situation are for another topic)

Looting has a negative impact to society, specially for the working class who struggle to get ahead. Some people may afford those loses, but not everyone is so privileged.

One of my friends got looted while trying to sell fruits. He was in a though financial situation and was struggling to get money to provide for his family. Luckilly, he managed to get ahead and overcome this struggle, but things were pretty dire for his family for a while. What many dont consider when talking about looting, is that there are human beings who struggle to survive who are being affected by it.

Looting will not end racism, chances are that is gonna make it worse. It sucks that some people are exploiting this situation to get away with crimes and making the peaceful protesters look worse.

[DiegoPalacios]

My country has some riots and looting going on to for other reasons, but gotta say wish in my country someone had the guts like that woman to call out the looters for their behavior that way.

[VibrantFox]

I think there's definitely folks like that out there but I can't help but feel like based on what i tend to see or hear is that those same voices end up being silenced in one way or the other