Surly Megathread of destruction and doom. [BEWARE VERY DOOMY]

[Brisketexan 105,125]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's always the fringes that cause the problems at both sides of the equation.

I don't disagree, but it's incomplete.  Here's the problem: the police (both local, and ESPECIALLY the hyper-militarized federal shock troops that have shown up) aren't a fringe.  These institutions have committed gross acts of brutality that brought about this movement (George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, and the list goes on).  And they have committed gross and unjustified acts of brutality and violence on non-violent protesters (see the man shot in the face holding a speaker, see the kid shot in the head in Austin, standing peacefully 100 yards away, etc. -- seriously, there are literally hundreds of these events from just the past months).

Let't toss out the violent anarchist fringe.  Let's toss out the white supremacist agitator fringe.  That leaves us with only the peaceful protesters.....and the local and federal cops.  Who work for all of us, in our name.....and continue to commit acts of unjustified violence against our own people.  

So, I like your distillation, but understand that it puts our problem in even sharper relief.

[Brisketexan 105,125]

15 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I believe in peaceful protest, passive resistance, all of the peaceful ways a group can bring actual attention, and sympathy to their cause.

I do not believe children (anyone under 18 years) should ever be involved in a protest that has the potential to become violent. Using children os a lame tool unless it's for a save the dolphins march.  I think we've all seen the videos of the children with FUCK TRUMP placards around their necks being paraded down the street by their mothers.  Repulsively, disgusted was my first, second, and third thought.

Counterpoint -- why are you concerned about the children?

Hint: it's because you KNOW that we cannot trust the authorities not to turn the hoses and dogs on them.  We've seen it before.  We've seen the modern equivalent in the past months.  And we know we'll see it again.

I wouldn't sent an elementary school student out there.  But my son is under 18, in high school.  He is very politically aware, all on his own (seriously, he's the most ethical, and actually semi-conservative, member of our household).  He has chosen to participate in demonstrations on his own.  He may again.  I will allow it.  I would prefer to keep him out of anything that we know will turn violent (specifically, where the protest leadership etc. isn't trustworthy), but we also know that in any given demonstration, the police may choose to go apeshit.  So, he has a protective kit.  But this is his society -- I hope.  It is his future -- I hope.  Oh, and my kids make their own signs -- we don't tell them what to say.

You should be able to carry an infant to a march with no fear that the police will brutalize you and your child.  But you aren't.  That's the problem.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't disagree, but it's incomplete.  Here's the problem: the police (both local, and ESPECIALLY the hyper-militarized federal shock troops that have shown up) aren't a fringe.  These institutions have committed gross acts of brutality that brought about this movement (George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, and the list goes on).  And they have committed gross and unjustified acts of brutality and violence on non-violent protesters (see the man shot in the face holding a speaker, see the kid shot in the head in Austin, standing peacefully 100 yards away, etc. -- seriously, there are literally hundreds of these events from just the past months).

Let't toss out the violent anarchist fringe.  Let's toss out the white supremacist agitator fringe.  That leaves us with only the peaceful protesters.....and the local and federal cops.  Who work for all of us, in our name.....and continue to commit acts of unjustified violence against our own people.  

So, I like your distillation, but understand that it puts our problem in even sharper relief.

I agree. I don't like seeing police or gov't  use force against non violent groups.  Unfortunately gov'ts have always over reacted with force.  That's certainly an issue being protested now.

[Rougarou 594]

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The answers are "I don't know" and "it depends."

I'll ask this -- if you were black, you raised the very real and obvious structural problems, and the government told you to fuck off, emphasized with clubs and teargas....what would YOU do?  

You're asking the age-old question of "would you be MLK or Malcolm X?"  Jury is still out on that.  We love to hold up MLK as the proper way.  And they killed the shit out of MLK.

Thanks again for your responses. Your question is kinda weird, but you've been super fair and charitable in answering my questions to help me better understand your thought process and position so I'll attempt to do the same, even though it's awkward to try and say what I'd do if I were black (because I don't want to speak for blacks or blackfish/blackface via typing).

In your hypothetical I think it depends on my class (bad_teammate is right-- the root cause of all this is class), more than race. If I am black and:

-If I am truly class-privileged, I don't care to raise arms and I strive to make changes in incremental ways that de-risk my (meaning my familiy's) stability and comforts.

-If I'm middle-class and upwardly mobile (or can't handle the hypocrisy of America and need to follow my higher ideals above all)-- I probably move to Toronto or otherwise diaspora to a less broken place.

-If I'm middle-class and upwardly mobile and and see my life as a stoic and sacrifice to give my children the freedom I don't have-- I move to Atlanta and try to continue the "city on a hill" for black people that for decades has been made a real community with the most advanced form of diversity, inclusion and equality for black people that exists in America.

-If I am young/poor/hopeless (or idealistic and naive)-- I'm joining the revolution in the streets and I'm rallying under the battle cry of street warriors and poets before me, under the banner of "It's like my nigga Napoleon said, someone gotta explain why I ain't got shit." 

You're asking the age-old question of "would you be MLK or Malcolm X?"  Jury is still out on that.  We love to hold up MLK as the proper way.  And they killed the shit out of MLK.

I mean, they killed Malcolm X, too.

"But you know what they say

when you're great.

It ain't 'kill'

it's 'assassinate"

- Poet Laureate, Dwayne M. C. Jr.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Counterpoint -- why are you concerned about the children?

Hint: it's because you KNOW that we cannot trust the authorities not to turn the hoses and dogs on them.  We've seen it before.  We've seen the modern equivalent in the past months.  And we know we'll see it again.

I wouldn't sent an elementary school student out there.  But my son is under 18, in high school.  He is very politically aware, all on his own (seriously, he's the most ethical, and actually semi-conservative, member of our household).  He has chosen to participate in demonstrations on his own.  He may again.  I will allow it.  I would prefer to keep him out of anything that we know will turn violent (specifically, where the protest leadership etc. isn't trustworthy), but we also know that in any given demonstration, the police may choose to go apeshit.  So, he has a protective kit.  But this is his society -- I hope.  It is his future -- I hope.  Oh, and my kids make their own signs -- we don't tell them what to say.

You should be able to carry an infant to a march with no fear that the police will brutalize you and your child.  But you aren't.  That's the problem.

I do agree it's a potentially dangerous thing to do, but that can cut both ways.  It's crass to use kids, and it's potentially dangerous not only from the police going off, but also because within the group of protesters things can go wrong.  Children are children, and they should not be used as pawns (and they often are SEE: abortion protests). Your HS kid can make this own mind up about what he wants to protest. I'm really talking about younger kids. I use 18 as the legal age pf consent.

Sorry I 100% disagree about being able to take an infant to a march where you know violence could potentially erupt.  Any parent not knowing the types of protests we have going on today could turn ugly is not fit to be a parent  Your no. 1 job as a parent is to protect your children not make them part of your cause du jour.

[Brisketexan 105,125]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Sorry I 100% disagree about being able to take an infant to a march where you know violence could potentially erupt.  Any parent not knowing the types of protests we have going on today could turn ugly is not fit to be a parent  Your no. 1 job as a parent is to protect your children not make them part of your cause du jour.

Oh, I'm not saying that you should bring an infant to a march that might turn violent.  My point is that you SHOULD BE ABLE TO, without fear of the cops going apeshit on you.

And as for older children.....protecting them includes protecting their future.  This will be their country.....maybe.   We praise 14-15 yr olds who faked forms to sign up and fight in WWII.  And we saw kids getting beaten and attacked by dogs in Birmingham back in the day....and it made a difference.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I'm not saying that you should bring an infant to a march that might turn violent.  My point is that you SHOULD BE ABLE TO, without fear of the cops going apeshit on you.

And as for older children.....protecting them includes protecting their future.  This will be their country.....maybe.   We praise 14-15 yr olds who faked forms to sign up and fight in WWII.  And we saw kids getting beaten and attacked by dogs in Birmingham back in the day....and it made a difference.

Again you cherry pick comments. Why do you continue to do that ?  Stop trying  a case before a jury. Infants shouldn't be taken to marches for anything other than Barney parades.

Infants are not tools to be used ever. And again you ignore the fact that many protests are not ratcheted up by police, but by players in the crowd with the express purpose of causing escalation of violence.

[Brisketexan 105,125]

12 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Thanks again for your responses. Your question is kinda weird, but you've been super fair and charitable in answering my questions to help me better understand your thought process and position so I'll attempt to do the same, even though it's awkward to try and say what I'd do if I were black (because I don't want to speak for blacks or blackfish/blackface via typing).

In your hypothetical I think it depends on my class (bad_teammate is right-- the root cause of all this is class), more than race. If I am black and:

-If I am truly class-privileged, I don't care to raise arms and I strive to make changes in incremental ways that de-risk my (meaning my familiy's) stability and comforts.

-If I'm middle-class and upwardly mobile (or can't handle the hypocrisy of America and need to follow my higher ideals above all)-- I probably move to Toronto or otherwise diaspora to a less broken place.

-If I'm middle-class and upwardly mobile and and see my life as a stoic and sacrifice to give my children the freedom I don't have-- I move to Atlanta and try to continue the "city on a hill" for black people that for decades has been made a real community with the most advanced form of diversity, inclusion and equality for black people that exists in America.

-If I am young/poor/hopeless (or idealistic and naive)-- I'm joining the revolution in the streets and I'm rallying under the battle cry of street warriors and poets before me, under the banner of "It's like my nigga Napoleon said, someone gotta explain why I ain't got shit." 

 

Well -- and I agree with you, I cannot speak for black Americans, hell, one of the issues here is that they have not been provided adequate voice -- but I can hear what many are saying. 

And you're missing something that they're saying.  Many relatively rich and powerful black Americans are saying the same things the poorest ones are.  When a rich black athlete (as some of the public voices are) gets in his car and leaves the ballpark....he's a shitload more likely to have a crappy, even violent, encounter with law enforcement than his white teammates are.

Now, these voices have more power - and money - to try to bring about change in other ways (see Lebron James spearheading an effort to pay down felony fines to re-enfranchise Florida voters who have done their time, but are still being prevented from voting).  So, you're right on that point -- they can work the problem in ways that present lower risk.

Of course, Kapernick took a risk, and lost a great deal.

I'm frustrated and ripshit pissed because, instead of all that, we could INSTEAD.....listen to their voices raising up very real problems, and actually address them.  Naah, we'll just call them scumbags and dismiss and delegitimize them, like we've always done.

[BayouBill 835]

The sexual tension is HEAVY in here today.

[Brisketexan 105,125]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Again you cherry pick comments. Why do you continue to do that ?  Stop trying  a case before a jury. Infants shouldn't be taken to marches for anything other than Barney parades.

Infants are not tools to be used ever. And again you ignore the fact that many protests are not ratcheted up by police, but by players in the crowd with the express purpose of causing escalation of violence.

Yet the infants/young kids are perfectly safe at numerous other marches, demonstrations, etc.  We saw many, just a couple of months ago, in the "reopen America" movement.  Armed protesters there, even (seriously, openly carrying weapons).....and the police used complete restraint, kids were perfectly safe.

Or, the various "women's marches" that happened after the 2016 election -- lots of school-age girls went to that (my daughter included).  There was no material fear of violence....because the crowd was largely white, and female, and wasn't a true threat to the existing power structure.

Yes, some protests are ratcheted up by people in the crowd.  But you know where the odds lay.  There's a reason for the difference.

[Rougarou 594]

Quote

And you're missing something that they're saying.  Many relatively rich and powerful black Americans are saying the same things the poorest ones are.  When a rich black athlete (as some of the public voices are) gets in his car and leaves the ballpark....he's a shitload more likely to have a crappy, even violent, encounter with law enforcement than his white teammates are.

I think your premise is wrong (and thus your response to my post, is wrong) in that Athletes/Entertainers don't count as rich and powerful until they've reached a certain level (e.g. Jay-Z, LeBron, Sean Combs, etc. aka legitimate business/brand owners) or stayed rich and powerful beyond their "entertainment" shelf-life.

It sucks but that's the way it's viewed, in the same way that you wouldn't call a poor rural person "rich and powerful" because they won the WV lottery, knowing because of their background and class caste, the overwhelming odds are that they are going to be broke again.

The athletes you quoted above are saying and experiencing from the white, racist world the same things the poorest ones are saying and experiencing (and not the truly class-privileged black people) for the same reason-- they are overwhelmingly statistically speaking the poorest ones in that they've lived most of their life that way and statistically speaking will end back up that way once their entertainment value is beyond salvage value.

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Rougarou

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

14 hours ago, staboner said:

this thread has gone full fucking retard. 

DT is turning into goddamn hornfans. there are more rational posters in the fucking CR than here

ya'll motherfuckers need jesus

@Brisketexan i would just give up. no one is going try to meet you anywhere near middle. everything is a violent protest and you need just be scared of that. 

Uh oh. Somebody's echo chamber isn't functioning...

[Js1 85,325]

PrOtEsTs Do NoT wOrK

 

[BabaYaga 15,296]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Of course, Kapernick took a risk, and lost a great deal.

A risk?  A risk would have been taking a stand when he was a starter during his SB run and he was the face of the franchise.  Instead, he got replaced by Blaine Gabbert.  Let me say that again...Blaine fucking Gabbert.  Who is/was fucking terrible.

Kap later turned down a contract with Seattle because his head was still swollen with delusions of grandeur.  The NFL has always evaluated players based upon their locker room impact.  This was nothing new, but to say Kap "took a risk" ignores what actually happened.  He was given multiple opportunities to play.  As a backup.  The Giants and Green Bay also looked at him.  He apparently wanted $15-20M/year, which for a one-trick-pony QB is utterly absurd.  

The NFL then threw him another bone and a chance to play for their Alliance of American Football....he demanded a salary of $20M/year!  It's like a minor league system and everyone makes the same $225K over 3 years  

There are fewer arenas of pure meritocracy than the NFL.  Most owners would sign a deal with the Devil himself if it meant a Super Bowl win.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Most owners would sign a deal with the Devil himself if it meant a Super Bowl win

[Brisketexan 105,125]

24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

PrOtEsTs Do NoT wOrK

 

I sincerely hope that this move de-escalates the situation in Portland.

[high side 3 way 54]

27 minutes ago, Js1 said:

PrOtEsTs Do NoT wOrK

 

Good luck with that Portland. 

CHAZ/CHOP electric boogaloo incoming.

Edited July 29, 2020 by high side 3 way

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I sincerely hope that this move de-escalates the situation in Portland.

As does everyone who believes in rule of law... however one side does not....

[GHOSTUSER 361]

29 minutes ago, Js1 said:

PrOtEsTs Do NoT wOrK

 

From the pics posted earlier, looks like the Feds put up the barriers and plywood needed to protect the building. If the governor and mayor are stupid enough to let their city burn, so be it. 

[Brisketexan 105,125]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

As does everyone who believes in rule of law... however one side does not....

I presume you are speaking of the federal law enforcement officers, who openly violated a Federal court injunction?

Come on, man.  You seem to be getting it at times -- and then you revert to your mean: protesters are anarchist/marxists/evildoers, and are the entire problem.

Shit, this entire movement STARTED because the police repeatedly, on an institutional basis, act outside and above the rule of law.  And since the protests began, the police have acted multiple times, in clearly documented ways, contrary to the rule of law -- including open defiance of a clear Federal court order.

[Js1 85,325]

17 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

As does everyone who believes in rule of law... however one side does not....

Yeah the federal government paramilitary kidnapping force does not.  You figured it out! 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I presume you are speaking of the federal law enforcement officers, who openly violated a Federal court injunction?

Come on, man.  You seem to be getting it at times -- and then you revert to your mean: protesters are anarchist/marxists/evildoers, and are the entire problem.

Shit, this entire movement STARTED because the police repeatedly, on an institutional basis, act outside and above the rule of law.  And since the protests began, the police have acted multiple times, in clearly documented ways, contrary to the rule of law -- including open defiance of a clear Federal court order.

I believe it's a 2 sided issue, but I also believe there's a a core group that's agitating for violence to continue.  And again it's not all protesters, but there are enough that the movement is tainted badly.  What was the federal injunction ?

[BabaYaga 15,296]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I sincerely hope that this move de-escalates the situation in Portland.

This seems to suggest a causal relationship between the rioting/looting and Federal intervention?  This doesn't seem to bear out if you look at the timelines.  There were riots/looting for three weeks before they focused their ire on a federal building, precipitating federal intervention.  

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

This seems to suggest a causal relationship between the rioting/looting and Federal intervention?  This doesn't seem to bear out if you look at the timelines.  There were riots/looting for three weeks before they focused their ire on a federal building, precipitating federal intervention.  

Yeah, this whole "Everything was fine until the Feds showed up" narrative is bullshit.

[Brisketexan 105,125]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I believe it's a 2 sided issue, but I also believe there's a a core group that's agitating for violence to continue.  And again it's not all protesters, but there are enough that the movement is tainted badly.  What was the federal injunction ?

The bolded text....there is....but what you need to realize is that it's on (apologies to Anastasis, I may have to pay him royalties for this) both sides.  The administration has a clearly-stated vested political interest in projecting power, violently, into American cities (with democrat mayors -- I mean, he stated just that).  Including cities like Albuquerque.....which haven't experienced any unrest, or even any meaningful protests, in weeks.  The deployment of federal paramilitary irregulars to crack skulls is not a "regrettable" course to these folks -- it's a DESIRED course.

Understand that anarchist shitheels out in the crowd have a vested interest in starting shit.  And understand that the Federal Stasi and its leadership has a vested interest in showing how billy badass they are by cracking skulls.

As to the federal injunction: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-issues-restraining-order-federal-agents-portland -- summary, injunction against targeting journalists.

And the near-immediate violations: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/portland-protests-feds-are-flouting-court-order-to-stop-targeting-journalists-aclu-says.html

Quote

Journalists and legal observers in Portland, Oregon, who secured a court order last week barring federal officers from targeting them at protests are asking a federal judge to sanction the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Marshals Service for their failure to comply with it. 

Judge Michael Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday, finding that the actions by federal officials at the demonstrations raised serious questions about potential violations of the First Amendment.

Federal agents violated the order just hours later and have continued to violate it every night since, according to attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm BraunHagey & Borden. 

The lawsuit includes declarations, photographs and videos from journalists and observers who say they were targeted by federal agents with mace, tear gas, flash bangs and other weapons.

The ACLU makes the point quite well:

Quote

The filing came shortly after Attorney General William Barr defended the actions of federal officials in Portland during a contentious day of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Barr said that the actions of federal officers were necessary to protect federal property, including a federal courthouse located in the city. 

“Rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims,” Barr said. 

But Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., accused Barr of ordering law enforcement to Portland in order to help President Donald Trump get “footage for his campaign ads” as Trump faces a tough reelection battle against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. 

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Kelly Simon, interim legal director of the ACLU of Oregon, cited Barr’s testimony. 

“This administration claims to be defending the federal courthouse, but won’t obey the orders coming out of it. What purpose are these agents actually serving then?” Simon said. 

Not to go down the rabbit hole all the way, but I've discussed this on other threads: criminals out in society not following the law doesn't erode the rule of law.  It IMPLICATES and calls upon the rule of law, but a generic citizen breaking the law doesn't erode the rule of law.  The authorities, who 1) act on behalf of we the people in our entirety, and 2) are charged with UPHOLDING AND ENFORCING THE LAW, refusing the follow the rule of law -- THAT is what erodes the rule of law.

If the people in charge of the law don't give a shit about the law, why should the rest of us?  That's why it is so freaking dangerous and destructive to a functional society when the law enforcers set themselves above and apart from the law.  They really, really shouldn't do that, because it inevitably leads to an erosion of the rule of law across the board.

[Cody2422 273]

Some of you are confused between the definitions of protest and riots.

At this point, I sincerely hope the cops and federal troops withdraw and let the cities burn.  You’re delusional if you think the violence/riots are going to magically dissipate.

[high side 3 way 54]

4 minutes ago, Cody2422 said:

Some of you are confused between the definitions of protest and riots.

At this point, I sincerely hope the cops and federal troops withdraw and let the cities burn.  You’re delusional if you think the violence/riots are going to magically dissipate.

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeo, this is gonna go on till November.

Yup. Now imagine if the incumbent gets reelected. Things could get very very dicey in lots of different cities.

 

[Incredulity 11,669]

1 hour ago, BayouBill said:

The sexual tension is HEAVY in here today.

[dcar00 14,182]

13 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yeah, this whole "Everything was fine until the Feds showed up" narrative is bullshit.

egg-zactly.  its bullshit revisionism by the governor and mayor to cover their ass.  they are anarchists(and there is a good number of them) and not related to protesters who want to peacefully non violently protest about racism.

[Brisketexan 105,125]

8 minutes ago, Cody2422 said:

Some of you are confused between the definitions of protest and riots.

At this point, I sincerely hope the cops and federal troops withdraw and let the cities burn.  You’re delusional if you think the violence/riots are going to magically dissipate.

I mean, except for the fact that we have pretty good counter-examples.

For example, in the early days of the protests, there was significant violence and unrest in NYC.  There was also some in DC (yeah, arguments about who started it, but the point is, people were wrecking shit).

Today, there are still demonstrations etc. occurring in both places, and they are largely peaceful (yes, again, there is an individual or two lately who have committed mayhem, but they truly have been outliers -- most demonstrations have been entirely peaceful).

Disengagement is literally a proven method in conflict de-escalation.  My job is to engage in and manage adversarial conflict, and I regularly have to work to ratchet down conflict.  The #1 tool for doing so?  Disengagement.  Sure, the other side may continue to say and do some things that piss you off for a period, but in short order, having provoked no engaged negative response, the conflict almost always de-escalates significantly.  I mean, there are literally books written on this, including manuals used by our own military and police forces.  It is a highly effective tool.....that they have chosen to use in some places (with success), and to take the opposite path in other places (where there is now heightened conflict).

If the federal shock troops leave Portland, peace won't reign overnight.  But it will come.  And it will come more quickly than it would if the feds continue to provoke and invite a violent response (note, I'm not excusing the bomb-throwers -- assume they are wrong, and are bad people -- I'm just speaking as to how conflict resolution works).

Edited July 29, 2020 by Brisketexan

[dcar00 14,182]

if the hundreds if not thousands of anarchists leave Portland, peace won't reign overnight, but it will come.

[BabaYaga 15,296]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Disengagement is literally a proven method in conflict de-escalation.

Yeah, worked wonders in Portland when the mayor told the local LE to stand down, abandon their very precinct building, and the rioters then emboldened, burned it to the ground...again, for the third time.  Federal troops moved in three weeks after this, precipitated only when a federal building was set on fire.  Or go back to the first few pages of this thread and see pages upon pages of razed communities, burned out building, etc from communities where local LE was strictly told to not intervene.  

[Celery Man 20,946]

21 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I believe it's a 2 sided issue, but I also believe there's a a core group that's agitating for violence to continue.  And again it's not all protesters, but there are enough that the movement is tainted badly.  What was the federal injunction ?

I'm not completely convinced that the strategy of sending in federal troops to put boots on necks on the ground against the wishes of state and local government was intended explicitly to agitate and escalate violence, but I think the next most likely explanation for that strategy is incompetence. If the goal is to bring an end to violence, I don't see how anyone could competently assess that the use of abnormal federal military units in this way would bring about that change.

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

Apparently the feds aren't going anywhere.  

[Brisketexan 105,125]

6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

if the hundreds if not thousands of anarchists leave Portland, peace won't reign overnight, but it will come.

If local authorities engage with protest/demonstration leadership to work together to reign in (and even turn in and assist the authorities with enforcing against) violent anarchists, it can come even faster.  That approach has been used, with success, in numerous places and situations.

"We have gotten the feds to ratchet down, now we need your help in doing the same and keeping the peace so that no more people get hurt.  If you get word that people are intent on mayhem, do what you can to stop it.  If you can't, let us know, and we will -- peacefully, and in an appropriate, individualized manner -- stop them and take them into custody.  We are going to continue to cooperate with you and allow all the demonstrations that you want -- but we need your help in making sure it stays peaceful.  That benefits you, and it is to the benefit of everyone else in the city."

Note that this is NOT "disengament" defined as "we're just gonna walk away and leave the crowd to its own devices."  Rather, it is a dual strategy of disengagement as a conflict-engaging force, and engagement as a negotiating partner with a shared vested interest in peaceful protest.

I know it's not as fun as going out and launching 100 teargas grenades at a crowd, but it's a shitload more effective in bringing about the desired result.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, Celery Man said:

I'm not completely convinced that the strategy of sending in federal troops to put boots on necks on the ground against the wishes of state and local government was intended explicitly to agitate and escalate violence, but I think the next most likely explanation for that strategy is incompetence. If the goal is to bring an end to violence, I don't see how anyone could competently assess that the use of abnormal federal military units in this way would bring about that change.

The feds are not sending people in to escalator violence. They send people in to stop violence. There's nothing to gain by trying to escalate it.  That would show that the feds couldn't control violence.  That's not a very good thing to head off violence further down the road.  

[seven 1,367]

You guys realize that yesterday Onboard (the dumbest poster on this blog) blamed BLM for all the property damage in Richmond, was shown multiple people not connected to BLM were arrested for the property damage (including white supremacists), and he still blames BLM and won't accept that any BLM protest is peaceful. There is nothing anyone can say that will change his racist mind. 

[Celery Man 20,946]

Has the strategy worked or does it seem like it has had the opposite effect?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, seven said:

You guys realize that yesterday Onboard (the dumbest poster on this blog) blamed BLM for all the property damage in Richmond, was shown multiple people not connected to BLM were arrested for the property damage (including white supremacists), and he still blames BLM and won't accept that any BLM protest is peaceful. There is nothing anyone can say that will change his racist mind. 

Jesus you show up time and again, and show just how idiotic you are.  Whose sock are you ?  You can't be a real person.

[high side 3 way 54]

2 minutes ago, seven said:

You guys realize that yesterday Onboard (the dumbest poster on this blog) blamed BLM for all the property damage in Richmond, was shown multiple people not connected to BLM were arrested for the property damage (including white supremacists), and he still blames BLM and won't accept that any BLM protest is peaceful. There is nothing anyone can say that will change his racist mind. 

show your work

[Brothahorn 10,087]

14 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

The protests in Portland are still about black lives, as you would see if you listened to the speakers and watched the protesters signs/discussions. If all you're looking at is the fed-contrived drama at the fence then you're watching 50 people in a protest of many many thousands.

Most likely because the media you consume (either televised or social media) wants you to only see that insanely narrow perspective.

 

Joining the police force and joining the DA's office is not a way to accomplish things, are you joking?

Also, getting rid of politicians is a huge part of what they're doing by exerting pressure on their representatives and promoting challengers. Again, are you joking?

I highly doubt the media I consume is that much different from what you consume, so like you said earlier people see what they want to see. And you obviously see endless nights of nothingness as some kind of gallant battle. Please tell me what the goals are.

If you don't think having Cops and DA's who would speak up and prosecute killer cops and others is accomplishing the goals of justice for all, then you're lost. 

How do you get rid of the politicians and get the laws changed if you don't have the power of the vote. I guess you think they will just all resign in shame. You're quite the comedian, bub.

[Brisketexan 105,125]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The feds are not sending people in to escalator violence. They send people in to stop violence. There's nothing to gain by trying to escalate it.  That would show that the feds couldn't control violence.  That's not a very good thing to head off violence further down the road.  

The strategy was never as complex as you are noting.

The feds were sent in because "we gotta be billy badass LAW AND ORDER."  That's it.  There was no long-game strategy.  It was about flexing.  Which is rarely a smart strategy, because it doesn't actually accomplish anything.  

I agree with your take, that's how law enforcement SHOULD be used.  Which means that it should be used sparingly, and as part of an overall, comprehensive effort with a goal of sharply reducing violence.

It's the same reason that a strategy of "I'll whoop your fucking ass!" by an angry parent isn't sound parenting, and rarely achieves the long-term desired result: a well-disciplined, respectful child.  Punishment can have a role, and should  -- if it's strategic, calculated, and used in conjunction with positive measures aimed at steering conduct in in the right direction and encouraging proper conduct.

[Brisketexan 105,125]

1 minute ago, Brothahorn said:

How do you get rid of the politicians and get the laws changed if you don't have the power of the vote.

In a community where black people are a small-number minority, which is most communities.....they DON'T have the power of the vote.  They are dependent upon the will of the majority sympathizing with their cause, seeing that justice isn't being done, and demanding that it be done and applied equally to all.   That's the very definition of the plight of a minority population.  They can't just overwhelm the ballot box and bring about change -- in most places in this country, they'll never be able to do that.

[seven 1,367]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

The strategy was never as complex as you are noting.

The feds were sent in because "we gotta be billy badass LAW AND ORDER."  That's it.  There was no long-game strategy.  It was about flexing.  Which is rarely a smart strategy, because it doesn't actually accomplish anything.  

I agree with your take, that's how law enforcement SHOULD be used.  Which means that it should be used sparingly, and as part of an overall, comprehensive effort with a goal of sharply reducing violence.

It's the same reason that a strategy of "I'll whoop your fucking ass!" by an angry parent isn't sound parenting, and rarely achieves the long-term desired result: a well-disciplined, respectful child.  Punishment can have a role, and should  -- if it's strategic, calculated, and used in conjunction with positive measures aimed at steering conduct in in the right direction and encouraging proper conduct.

Careful, you're getting close to criticizing political decisions and that is not allowed 

[Brisketexan 105,125]

Just now, seven said:

Careful, you're getting close to criticizing political decisions and that is not allowed 

Bullshit.  "I'll whoop your fucking ass!" is 10X more thought-out and deliberate than any recent political decision I've seen.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

The strategy was never as complex as you are noting.

The feds were sent in because "we gotta be billy badass LAW AND ORDER."  That's it.  There was no long-game strategy.  It was about flexing.  Which is rarely a smart strategy, because it doesn't actually accomplish anything.  

I agree with your take, that's how law enforcement SHOULD be used.  Which means that it should be used sparingly, and as part of an overall, comprehensive effort with a goal of sharply reducing violence.

It's the same reason that a strategy of "I'll whoop your fucking ass!" by an angry parent isn't sound parenting, and rarely achieves the long-term desired result: a well-disciplined, respectful child.  Punishment can have a role, and should  -- if it's strategic, calculated, and used in conjunction with positive measures aimed at steering conduct in in the right direction and encouraging proper conduct.

When federal property is being attacked, burned, vandalized the feds should come in and arrest people, and protect that property.  What would you do let them burn it down ?  

That's why many cities are seeing more violence. The city leaders have not moved to stop it which invites further violence.

[seven 1,367]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

When federal property is being attacked, burned, vandalized the feds should come in and arrest people, and protect that property.  What would you do let them burn it down ?  

That's why many cities are seeing more violence. The city leaders have not moved to stop it which invites further violence.

They came in and started snatching random people off the street and interrogating them on connections to antifa. Why is this acceptable to you? 

[Wally Pryor 5,261]

We are so fucked as a country.  People are destroying businesses, livelihoods and lives because, well, there are businesses, livelihoods and lives to destroy. 

Yeah, we are so fucked as a country and won't recover for a long, long time.   

[Armybrat 40,841]

3 minutes ago, seven said:

They came in and started snatching random people off the street and interrogating them on connections to antifa. Why is this acceptable to you? 

Paging Steel Shank....

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

6 minutes ago, seven said:

They came in and started snatching random people off the street and interrogating them on connections to antifa. Why is this acceptable to you? 

Umm which came first the chicken or the egg..