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

[Nicole44 22072]

10 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

Lulz.  What planet are they residing on?  Think these animals really give a shit who is inside?    As long as there is glass to be had and shit to be smashed, it's open season. 

It’s just a few bad apples. Lol.  Same argument we hear whenever there is police brutality. Just a few bad apples...in a few years when all the businesses have packed up and left downtown for the burbs after being destroyed countless times we will see mayors and city and state leaders begging people to come back like Cuomo did recently. Please come back! 

[Incredulity 11682]

13 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

It’s just a few bad apples. Lol.  Same argument we hear whenever there is police brutality. Just a few bad apples...in a few years when all the businesses have packed up and left downtown for the burbs after being destroyed countless times we will see mayors and city and state leaders begging people to come back like Cuomo did recently. Please come back! 

It will be more shaming based.

"How dare these evil racist companies leave downtown areas".

Edited August 11, 2020 by Incredulity

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

Well according to those same “protestors” (rioters and looters) looting is reparations and their right and the businesses have insurance anyway soooooo who cares?

Who said this?

It's interesting you bring up "reparations" when no one has been talking about this. Interesting that you go racial with it.

lol just can't help but tell on themselves

[Incredulity 11682]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Who said this?

It's interesting you bring up "reparations" when no one has been talking about this. Interesting that you go racial with it.

lol just can't help but tell on themselves

https://nypost.com/2020/08/11/black-lives-matter-organizer-calls-chicago-looting-reparation/

[Nicole44 22072]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who said this?

It's interesting you bring up "reparations" when no one has been talking about this. Interesting that you go racial with it.

lol just can't help but tell on themselves

It’s all over the news. Plenty of articles you can find of people saying that the businesses are insured and they have a right to steal and take from those that have more.  We have had over 70 days of this stuff since George Floyd. I was all for the protests and participated as well. What is happening now has nothing to do with justice for Floyd. Huge distinction. I think instead of throwing the looters in jail, detain them overnight and have them clean up what they destroyed. Moo. Fuck em. 

[Moby Ric 2058]

 

Here's another. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-holds-rally-chicago-support-arrested-looting-unrest

 

Black Lives Matter members in Chicago held a rally on Monday to support the more than 100 arrested last night following widespread looting and rioting that caused at least $60 million in property damage and saw 13 police officers injured, according to a report.

The rally was organized by Black Lives Matter Chicago and was held at a police station in the South Loop where organizers say individuals are currently being held in custody. At least one organizer called the looting tantamount to "reparations."

“I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats,” said Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, according to NBC Chicago. “That makes sure that person has clothes.”

[Nicole44 22072]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who said this?

It's interesting you bring up "reparations" when no one has been talking about this. Interesting that you go racial with it.

lol just can't help but tell on themselves

Yes. I must be a racist. And you must be squarely anti racist. And I’m a horrible person too. And have bad opinions on every subject. Equality for all makes me itch. Okeedokee! 

[Incredulity 11682]

real time image of BT

[bad_teammate 13224]

Are the "looters" part of BLM?

The argument is made, and I think it's well-founded, but that looters/rioters aren't political aware and engaged. Either that's true or its not. You have to pick one; it can't just be whichever one is most convenient for you in the moment.

 

[Incredulity 11682]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Are the "looters" part of BLM?

The argument is made, and I think it's well-founded, but that looters/rioters aren't political aware and engaged. Either that's true or its not. You have to pick one; it can't just be whichever one is most convenient for you in the moment.

 

The leader of BLM Chicago literally says the looting is reparations.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Are "BLM" and "the looters" the same thing?

[Rougarou 594]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

TIL general civil unrest during the highest unemployment and most rampant pandemic of our times is the same thing as organized mass protests against police brutality, and that everyone that participates in one is obviously participating in the other. I need to figure out a way to block this fucking thread, it smells like OANN and brietbart in here

Hats off to yall for managing to bind the two things together in your circle jerk. Don't forget your spirit jar in the middle

This is interesting because the point it thinks it's making is not the one it makes, but the opposite.

[Moby Ric 2058]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are the "looters" part of BLM?

The argument is made, and I think it's well-founded, but that looters/rioters aren't political aware and engaged. Either that's true or its not. You have to pick one; it can't just be whichever one is most convenient for you in the moment.

 

Are you really this fucking stupid, or is it massive denial?  The BLM organizer is the one who said it looting was reparations.

[ChickenSandwich 9849]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are "BLM" and "the looters" the same thing?

you tell us, because Chicago had hundreds of "one or the other" in the streets and stores this weekend.  I think many cheaply use the "BLM" as a cover to their own ends.  A universal excuse to their behavior, because it's about Black lives.  Things like blinding police officers, setting buildings on fire with people in them or attempting to do the same to officers in vehicles, robbing/looting stores and destroying public and private property.  You want to give all criminals cover because they terrorize under the "black lives matter" moniker. 

[Rougarou 594]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are the "looters" part of BLM?

The argument is made, and I think it's well-founded, but that looters/rioters aren't political aware and engaged. Either that's true or its not. You have to pick one; it can't just be whichever one is most convenient for you in the moment.

 

I don't understand your question.

You asked a question, someone(s) answered it. I assume you agree now that you've seen it stated.

The new question is are looters/rioters political aware and engaged? I'm sure they are aware of BLM, they align with BLM, but they are obviously not righteously protesting but rather being opportunistic looters hoping to wrap themselves in the shroud of BLM to justify felonious (and arguably greedy) behavior.

You have someone from BLM on the record giving them political cover, which I think is unwise, but whatever.

[Incredulity 11682]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are "BLM" and "the looters" the same thing?

They certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

[Nicole44 22072]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Are "BLM" and "the looters" the same thing?

I think you could make the distinction that some of the protestors are also looting and destroying things. What percentage that is I don’t know. The argument has been made on this forum several times that all police are bad. All of them. Not a few bad apples. They are all bad. Not all protestors are bad. We know this. But to act like there aren’t a “few bad apples” in the movement Is also wrong. This is derailing something that started out with the best possible intentions. And it sucks to see. Anyway, I need to drive down to SoCo and loot the Kendra Scott store a a few of those expensive western stores with the fancy boots. I’m female. I make and have always made less than my make counterparts and currently desperately trying to make money to salvage what’s left of my credit. I’m pretty pissed too! I might raid the Yeti store also just bc. I can sell the coolers in the burbs. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Moby Ric said:

Are you really this fucking stupid, or is it massive denial?  The BLM organizer is the one who said it looting was reparations.

Is it the people doing the looting saying its reparations or people on the outside of that diagnosing? Because those are very different things.

I don't think the looters are thinking, "This is reparations". I think their actions are a lot more naturalistic and in-the-moment or even outright criminal. I think the argument regarding reparations is a sociological diagnosis from people who aren't actually doing the looting.

Regarding the argument itself as a sociological diagnosis, James Baldwin says it well...

--------------------------------------

Q. How would you define somebody who smashes in the window of a television store and takes what he wants?

BALDWIN: Before I get to that, how would you define somebody who puts a cat where he is and takes all the money out of the ghetto where he makes it? Who is looting whom? Grabbing off the TV set? He doesn’t really want the TV set. He’s saying screw you. It’s just judgment, by the way, on the value of the TV set. He doesn’t want it. He wants to let you know he’s there. The question I’m trying to raise is a very serious question. The mass media-television and all the major news agencies-endlessly use that word “looter”. On television you always see black hands reaching in, you know. And so the American public concludes that these savages are trying to steal everything from us, And no one has seriously tried to get where the trouble is. After all, you’re accusing a captive population who has been robbed of everything of looting. I think it’s obscene.

--------------------------------------

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

 You want to give all criminals cover because they terrorize under the "black lives matter" moniker. 

I do? I've said repeatedly that I think those who break the law should be subject to it.

[Incredulity 11682]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is it the people doing the looting saying its reparations or people on the outside of that diagnosing? Because those are very different things.

I don't think the looters are thinking, "This is reparations". I think their actions are a lot more naturalistic and in-the-moment or even outright criminal. I think the argument regarding reparations is a sociological diagnosis from people who aren't actually doing the looting.

Regarding the argument itself as a sociological diagnosis, James Baldwin says it well...

--------------------------------------

Q. How would you define somebody who smashes in the window of a television store and takes what he wants?

BALDWIN: Before I get to that, how would you define somebody who puts a cat where he is and takes all the money out of the ghetto where he makes it? Who is looting whom? Grabbing off the TV set? He doesn’t really want the TV set. He’s saying screw you. It’s just judgment, by the way, on the value of the TV set. He doesn’t want it. He wants to let you know he’s there. The question I’m trying to raise is a very serious question. The mass media-television and all the major news agencies-endlessly use that word “looter”. On television you always see black hands reaching in, you know. And so the American public concludes that these savages are trying to steal everything from us, And no one has seriously tried to get where the trouble is. After all, you’re accusing a captive population who has been robbed of everything of looting. I think it’s obscene.

--------------------------------------

I do? I've said repeatedly that I think those who break the law should be subject to it.

[Nicole44 22072]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is it the people doing the looting saying its reparations or people on the outside of that diagnosing? Because those are very different things.

I don't think the looters are thinking, "This is reparations". I think their actions are a lot more naturalistic and in-the-moment or even outright criminal. I think the argument regarding reparations is a sociological diagnosis from people who aren't actually doing the looting.

Regarding the argument itself as a sociological diagnosis, James Baldwin says it well...

--------------------------------------

Q. How would you define somebody who smashes in the window of a television store and takes what he wants?

BALDWIN: Before I get to that, how would you define somebody who puts a cat where he is and takes all the money out of the ghetto where he makes it? Who is looting whom? Grabbing off the TV set? He doesn’t really want the TV set. He’s saying screw you. It’s just judgment, by the way, on the value of the TV set. He doesn’t want it. He wants to let you know he’s there. The question I’m trying to raise is a very serious question. The mass media-television and all the major news agencies-endlessly use that word “looter”. On television you always see black hands reaching in, you know. And so the American public concludes that these savages are trying to steal everything from us, And no one has seriously tried to get where the trouble is. After all, you’re accusing a captive population who has been robbed of everything of looting. I think it’s obscene.

--------------------------------------

I do? I've said repeatedly that I think those who break the law should be subject to it.

I understand the point Baldwin is making. Having said that—it won’t alter the circumstances in their favor. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

4 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

This is derailing something that started out with the best possible intentions.

If you believe that the looters and protesters aren't the exact same group, why would you feel this way? Why are you blaming the protest movement for the looting even if you don't believe they're a 1:1 match?

[Moby Ric 2058]

Yes, you are this fucking stupid.  You are just trolling now.

[Nicole44 22072]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

If you believe that the looters and protesters aren't the exact same group, why would you feel this way? Why are you blaming the protest movement for the looting even if you don't believe they're a 1:1 match?

When you see heads of the movement giving them cover and excusing it. That’s why. It’s saying defund the police and lets police ourselves when they are showing they cannot and will not. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, Nicole44 said:

When you see heads of the movement giving them cover and excusing it. That’s why.

So you were totally OK with all of it until that one BLM person said that looting was justifiable as reparations?

Because it really really seems like you're looking for a pretext here.

Quote

It’s saying defund the police and lets police ourselves when they are showing they cannot and will not. 

Is it? Even the community policing models offered involve structure and funding and training and rules. I don't think "zero law enforcement ever, all vigilantes forever" is a common proposal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Armybrat 40874]

11 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

Are you really this fucking stupid, or is it massive denial?  The BLM organizer is the one who said it looting was reparations.

He knows the destruction, looting, fighting the cops, and the antifa thugs are destroying the “center’s” sympathy for the BLM movement, but denial is the new name of the Chicago River.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

TIL general civil unrest during the highest unemployment and most rampant pandemic of our times is the same thing as organized mass protests against police brutality, and that everyone that participates in one is obviously participating in the other. I need to figure out a way to block this fucking thread, it smells like OANN and brietbart in here

Hats off to yall for managing to bind the two things together in your circle jerk. Don't forget your spirit jar in the middle

Jesus christ stop with this bullshit, hypocritical, lying you're engaging in.

 

Block it ?  Just stop coming here, and spinning yarns of falsehood.....

Edited August 11, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Armybrat said:

He knows the destruction, looting, fighting the cops, and the antifa thugs are destroying the “center’s” sympathy for the BLM movement, but denial is the new name of the Chicago River.

I don't know things that haven't been proven. The people complaining here about it certainly don't constitute any "center" reasonably defined.

But even if it is true, there's nothing I can do about it other than try to understand why so many Americans are acting this way.

 

[Nicole44 22072]

Just now, Armybrat said:

He knows the destruction, looting, fighting the cops, and the antifa thugs are destroying the “center’s” sympathy for the BLM movement, but denial is the new name of the Chicago River.

 

Chicago has been in denial for a long time. My friends from there always bristle and get irritated when the news says 50 shot in one weekend. They want you to think it’s all under control. But I bet if it were similar situation in Texas they’d be all “Hey what’s happening in Texas, Nicole?” I don’t think I’d say it’s all been blown out of proportion by the local and national media. But my friends from there do. I think it’s a Chicago thing? I really loved visiting there when I went 20 years ago. Sad to see really. They’ve never addressed any of the problems that do create crime and keep passing the buck and then get pissed when the world sees what is happening and the media reports on it. 

[Incredulity 11682]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So you were totally OK with all of it until that one BLM person said that looting was justifiable as reparations?

Because it really really seems like you're looking for a pretext here.

Is it? Even the community policing models offered involve structure and funding and training and rules. I don't think "zero law enforcement ever, all vigilantes forever" is a common proposal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong again.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/11/ariel-atkins-blm-chicago-organizer-says-looting-is/

“There’s no such thing as a bad protester,” she told the Chicago Tribune. “Also, [we’re] demanding that police be defunded. Police should not be here. They should not exist, especially because we’re giving them all this money to beat and terrorize us. We’re giving them all this money when it’s like we’re in an actual pandemic and people need care right now, but you’re giving them police.

“We don’t need police,” Ms. Atkins added. “We need care.”

Edited August 11, 2020 by Incredulity

[Rougarou 594]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If you believe that the looters and protesters aren't the exact same group, why would you feel this way? Why are you blaming the protest movement for the looting even if you don't believe they're a 1:1 match?

I'll answer you because I don't believe they are a 1:1 to match. I believe, and stated earlier, that once this type of thing became normalized and once it started in Chicago, it was going to be bad news due to the unique intersection of population/critical mass, poverty, and culture.

BLM has given the political cover (BLM spokesperson justifying looting and rioting) and is the flag under which looters can operate under, in a vague and gray area-loosely-defensible-way if pressed. The felonious looters can plead BLM/righteousness/"good trouble" in the thinnest way possible. Now, I do think most reasonable adults can discern whom are civil protesters and which are hoodlums, but the fact that rioting/looting during BLM protests in the early days of this stuff was allowed and justified has opened the door to where we are now. And as everyone knows, Chicago is the last one you want it with. This has potential to be the very, very tragic beginnings.

11 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I understand the point Baldwin is making. Having said that—it won’t alter the circumstances in their favor. 

Further, I think Baldwin's point does not meet with what we have seen on video and reported in Chicago. Chicago looters are mostly acting in greed and in search of aspirational/luxury goods that are generally difficult to procure for those in the South side of town.

And there are a myriad of reasons/theories why which link to institutional racism and the poverty it's caused and why these items are identified as things to fill the psychological and mental issues caused by poverty (insecurity, identity issues, feeling less-than/other, second-class, etc.).

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Again, you guys are finding one voice saying one thing and extrapolating that across an entire nationwide movement.

And even in terms of that quote, what does she mean by "police"? Does she mean literally every conceivable organized form of law enforcement?

[Incredulity 11682]

[Rougarou 594]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Again, you guys are finding one voice saying one thing and extrapolating that across an entire nationwide movement.

And even in terms of that quote, what does she mean by "police"? Does she mean literally every conceivable organized form of law enforcement?

Always a position of strength when you have to micro-focus on the definition of what a word really is. Just ask Mr. William "depends on what is, is" Clinton.

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

Chicago looters are mostly acting in greed and in search of aspirational/luxury goods that are generally difficult to procure for those in the South side of town.

This is a statement you just don't have the capability to be this confident in. You can't know what's going on internally there.

Just now, Rougarou said:

Always a position of strength when you have to micro-focus on the definition of what a word really is.

I know you're being facetious, but understanding what people mean is the central struggle of intelligent conversation.

[Wally Pryor 5262]

19 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

He knows the destruction, looting, fighting the cops, and the antifa thugs are destroying the “center’s” sympathy for the BLM movement, but denial is the new name of the Chicago River.

 

"destroying"?    How about past tense?

Ship sailed a few weeks back. 

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

2 hours ago, Brothahorn said:

Your word is good enough for me. But if we're basing this on personal experiences, we'll just have to disagree on the definition of 'many'.

In my experience the loud ones don’t help as much.  But good on anyone that helps.  Need a lot more.  

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

28 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

Chicago has been in denial for a long time. My friends from there always bristle and get irritated when the news says 50 shot in one weekend. They want you to think it’s all under control. But I bet if it were similar situation in Texas they’d be all “Hey what’s happening in Texas, Nicole?” I don’t think I’d say it’s all been blown out of proportion by the local and national media. But my friends from there do. I think it’s a Chicago thing? I really loved visiting there when I went 20 years ago. Sad to see really. They’ve never addressed any of the problems that do create crime and keep passing the buck and then get pissed when the world sees what is happening and the media reports on it. 

Lol.  We only bristle because those texts tend to come from my family who only watch the news and assume the entire city is a war zone.  Until recently that wasn’t the case.  Comparing past summers and the response you got this summer makes very little sense if you think people’s reactions should/would be the same.  2020!!!

[Rougarou 594]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

This is a statement you just don't have the capability to be this confident in. You can't know what's going on internally there.

I know you're being facetious, but understanding what people mean is the central struggle of intelligent conversation.

I made that statement after viewing some videos and listening to the commentary in the rioting videos, but like I said, a lot of this is theory, from your end too.

[bad_teammate 13224]

4 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

... a lot of this is theory, from your end too.

100% fair

But I'm not sure what the "greed" thing really matters in terms of looking at Baldwin's analysis. Perhaps it makes them less morally sympathetic (someone acting solely out of pain vs someone acting with some kind of crasser motivation), but it's still a case of a people who have been robbed doing some robbing back.

For me, that's why I don't care about looting. When I look at the moral landscape, the looting done by the wealth class from the founding of the nation all the way until today is 10000x more morally repugnant to me than broke people stealing stuff that's insured anyway. Treat it like a crime, sure, but poor people stealing stuff isn't how the nation collapses and it's not how weak people are made to suffer.

(Obviously the moral calculus is wildly different when the impacted businesses are small/family-owned/uninsured.)

[Rougarou 594]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

100% fair

But I'm not sure what the "greed" thing really matters in terms of looking at Baldwin's analysis. Perhaps it makes them less morally sympathetic (someone acting solely out of pain vs someone acting with some kind of crasser motivation), but it's still a case of a people who have been robbed doing some robbing back.

For me, that's why I don't care about looting. When I look at the moral landscape, the looting done by the wealth class from the founding of the nation all the way until today is 10000x more morally repugnant to me than broke people stealing stuff that's insured anyway. Treat it like a crime, sure, but poor people stealing stuff isn't how the nation collapses and it's not how weak people are made to suffer.

(Obviously the moral calculus is wildly different when the impacted businesses are small/family-owned/uninsured.)

I think there has been abstraction, as we talk about it in technology, in the sense that what looting was in Baldwin's day was more to the root or raw nerve-- open and honest-- (i.e. don't want the TV, but want someone to pay out of pain) versus what we have today which is layers upon layers built up by the repressive machine that is institutional poverty, racism and class warfare that the poorest and most violent of black people think they need a Gucci belt and and loud Versace outfits in order to feel like they matter and have worth in America. It's completely aspirational and comes from a place of being consciously or subconciously viewed as being less than, second-class, an "other" in white, patriarchal America.

That's my theory, at least, which is informed from not only these recent events (pictures and videos and rioter commentary) but also study into the culture of Chicago, the Southside, the gangland, the rappers and rap scene there, etc and when zooming out and seeing Chicagoans as it relates to a) America at large as well as b) contrasting with other pockets of black culture and population (e.g. Atlanta, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc. previously mentioned).

Ultimately, my fear here is that what I'll call "Black Chicago" has the resources/population, the ideology, and the fearlessness to really make this a deadly problem if it's not snuffed out ASAP, and that ultimately the motivation--explicit or implicit, conscious or subconscious-- matters not when it comes to what I can extrapolate is going to be bloody tragedy if this thing really gets oxygen.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Rougarou

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

Ultimately, my fear here is that what I'll call "Black Chicago" as the resources/population, the ideology, and the fearlessness to really make this a tragic and deadly problem if it's not snuffed out ASAP.

So the distinction between pain/greed motivators is ultimately about how dangerous the riots would ultimately become?

I'm not trolling you, I'm actually very grateful for your intelligent explanation of your ideas, I just want to understand.

 

[Incredulity 11682]

The sheer stupidity of, "it doesn't matter, they have insurance" is mind bottling.

 

[Hmmm 155]

The second was retweeted by BLMChicago.  No idea who runs it but seems somewhat legit.  Then again, could be anyone for all I know.

[Rougarou 594]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So the distinction between pain/greed motivators is ultimately about how dangerous the riots would ultimately become?

I'm not trolling you, I'm actually very grateful for your intelligent explanation of your ideas, I just want to understand.

 

No, the distinction is that over time the motivation has become more indirect (hence the introduction of greed) versus direct (political and pain). I'll use the analogy of a blister because it's poetic in that I can play with a homonym and it works:

Baldwin's rioting was because of the pain of the blister. Black Chicago, many generations neglected and tramped down upon, are now callused. Thus the rioting appears callous, because some of these rioters might only know viscerally why they hurt and feel the need to lust for elastic, luxury goods. Greed is the abstraction.

I hope that makes sense, as I speak from a place of immense and unfathomable privilege when compared to what I've seen of South Chicago.

[Nicole44 22072]

I bet the boat architectural tour (which I’ve always wanted to go on) would be a riot now...Chicago when I visited had the best food of the places I went (NY Boston Maine etc). 
 

It is sad to see what is happening right now. That’s all I’ve got. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Are the "looters" part of BLM?

[Wally Pryor 5262]

Crackers representing.

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

13 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

No, the distinction is that over time the motivation has become more indirect (hence the introduction of greed) versus direct (political and pain). I'll use the analogy of a blister because it's poetic in that I can play with a homonym and it works:

Baldwin's rioting was because of the pain of the blister. Black Chicago, many generations neglected and tramped down upon, are now callused. Thus the rioting appears callous, because some of these rioters might only know viscerally why they hurt and feel the need to lust for elastic, luxury goods. Greed is the abstraction.

I hope that makes sense, as I speak from a place of immense and unfathomable privilege when compared to what I've seen of South Chicago.

I think I'm understanding you more clearly, but I guess I see it as a distinction without meaningful difference.

If 1960s black man is looting as an incoherent middle finger to oppression and the 2020s black man is looting as a more defined attempt to acquire things, then I guess you and I are both in agreement that the 2020s motivation is basically just an advanced stage of the 1960s man's cancer. I see what you're saying, but in my mind it doesn't really change how government needs to respond. The cancer is still the cancer, I guess.

(Sorry if it seems like I'm being obtuse or something.)

Regarding the greed aspect, the looting doesn't seem focused entirely on luxury goods. Walgreens and 7/11 stores are hit right alongside Fendi and Prada.

And if the looting in Chicago IS an example of people coming from poor areas to the wealthy shopping districts then I guess we could just as easily read "FUCK YOU RICH BASTARDS!" into it as "I want some Gucci stuff so I can flex in the hood."

Either way, the riot is the language of the unheard and we need to create a nation in which neither of these motivations are salient to our fellow Americans.

22 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The sheer stupidity of, "it doesn't matter, they have insurance" is mind bottling.

The entire purpose of insurance is to reduce how much losing a thing matters, so... no, you're wrong.

1 minute ago, Wally Pryor said:

Crackers representing.

 

The multiracial aspect of this points to class motivations.

[Rougarou 594]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I think I'm understanding you more clearly, but I guess I see it as a distinction without meaningful difference.

If 1960s black man is looting as an incoherent middle finger to oppression and the 2020s black man is looting as a more defined attempt to acquire things, then I guess you and I are both in agreement that the 2020s motivation is basically just an advanced stage of the 1960s man's cancer. I see what you're saying, but in my mind it doesn't really change how government needs to respond. The cancer is still the cancer, I guess.

(Sorry if it seems like I'm being obtuse or something.)

Regarding the greed aspect, the looting doesn't seem focused entirely on luxury goods. Walgreens and 7/11 stores are hit right alongside Fendi and Prada.

And if the looting in Chicago IS an example of people coming from poor areas to the wealthy shopping districts then I guess we could just as easily read "FUCK YOU RICH BASTARDS!" into it as "I want some Gucci stuff so I can flex in the hood."

Either way, the riot is the language of the unheard and we need to create a nation in which neither of these motivations are salient to our fellow Americans.

The entire purpose of insurance is to reduce how much losing a thing matters, so... no, you're wrong.

The multiracial aspect of this points to class motivations.

I think you are hearing me and the cancer is still the cancer is the best way to sum it up.

That said, I think it's hard to see that the cancer is still the cancer because there is so much more noise, and that is the point I'm making around greed and how it obfuscates the primal and visceral nature of why people are commuting from outside of the cosmopolitan downtown to come, risking a felony, to partake in both an individualistic and communal (paradox noted) display of taking a few scalps made of bedazzled Italian cloth with initials and logos on them.

The whole point I was trying to initially make is that Black Chicago is doing this on a level, and in an unabashed way, hitherto unseen in the BLM/Floyd protest era and it's shocking....and just the tip of the iceberg if Black Chicago really gets inspired to mix the oil of wanton and hopeless chaos with the gas of good trouble.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Rougarou

[Incredulity 11682]

56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I think I'm understanding you more clearly, but I guess I see it as a distinction without meaningful difference.

If 1960s black man is looting as an incoherent middle finger to oppression and the 2020s black man is looting as a more defined attempt to acquire things, then I guess you and I are both in agreement that the 2020s motivation is basically just an advanced stage of the 1960s man's cancer. I see what you're saying, but in my mind it doesn't really change how government needs to respond. The cancer is still the cancer, I guess.

(Sorry if it seems like I'm being obtuse or something.)

Regarding the greed aspect, the looting doesn't seem focused entirely on luxury goods. Walgreens and 7/11 stores are hit right alongside Fendi and Prada.

And if the looting in Chicago IS an example of people coming from poor areas to the wealthy shopping districts then I guess we could just as easily read "FUCK YOU RICH BASTARDS!" into it as "I want some Gucci stuff so I can flex in the hood."

Either way, the riot is the language of the unheard and we need to create a nation in which neither of these motivations are salient to our fellow Americans.

The entire purpose of insurance is to reduce how much losing a thing matters, so... no, you're wrong.

The multiracial aspect of this points to class motivations.

Well, you are a socialist so you’re definitely stupid enough to think insurance claims are a free lunch.