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

[BabaYaga 15212]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You're addressing someone who has no idea of what the loss of a business does to a small business owner, his family, the people who might work for him, their families, the businesses around him, the folks who supplied his now boarded up business, the loss of tax revenue for a locality, the people in a community who may have relied on that business for any number of reasons, the visual blight occurring as people have to now look at a third world like street scape.  

Yeah ...... never mind.... it's really nothing........... fuck them....

The posters calling it much ado about nothing either have no jobs, or are just stupid beyond belief, and I would also say are probably major hypocrites as if they were in that situation would be singing a far different tune.

It's a bullshit false equivalency to justify and defend the actions of the looters and rioters.  Nor do any of these assholes defending this shit live in the communities being destroyed.  It takes decades to recover.  Many will never recover.  We have some historical evidence to suggest it is significant and entails far more than the damage to the capital stock of buildings and vehicles.  Many are minority owned.  Property values plummet.  Median income drops for those in the areas while crime rates go up.  

The real fucking irony?  So far 17 people have died from the protests, higher than the number of unarmed black people killed by police last year (14)....many of them black

[Thatguy 8502]

On 9/12/2020 at 1:07 PM, Rougarou said:

 

 

Am I missing something in this philosophical/political science theory of social contract that the big brains of Surly have latched onto in recent months, about how it works? I did a cursory bit of googling, after first having learned of it 20 years ago and never thinking about it again, so I might not be too well versed..but what you are saying above seems to be a different animal.

Protesting is simply raising awareness; a public expression of disagreement and disapproval. Just because people--perhaps a slight, silent majority of Americans or maybe a vocal minority at a football game-- aren't moved to change their hearts and minds about the positions they hold which you are protesting doesn't mean that, "well, okay, we haven't done a good job of selling the belligerents on our position so I guess the only thing they will respond to is fires and looting and mayhem, and maybe we can get our way through destruction", does it? 

I mean, if it works then great and maybe it's a "by any means necessary" approach, but that's not non-violent protesting as we know it through the MLK Jr. coaching tree. And sure the same people who scoff at Kap probably are the same people would have probably scoffed at him now, but scoffing or booing or not agreeing with someone's stance and protest doesn't mean that the protest has failed unless we are saying that protests have evolved to mean some outcome-based vehicle and if you don't get you way after protesting then you are a failure.

In the 1960's there was the shit ton of riots happening all over the country. MLK had a 70-75% disapproval rating. Today in hindsight we are able to differentiate the two, but back then MLK was seen as the BLM of his time. Communist and the cause of Civil Unrest across the nation. Toons from the era.

[Thatguy 8502]

On 9/12/2020 at 2:30 PM, 52-80 said:

Which nations do you want to compare?  And you want to normalize those numbers to the level of crime in those countries?  When you face lots of violent criminals everyday, the rate of incident scales appropriately.  Cause, effect.

 

BTW, yes I think plenty of cops are dicks.  I think in many cases they are benefactors of the blue shield.  I also think there is too much inequality in America.  And I think the country can benefit from higher tax rates and better allocation of public capital.  

 

But what I don't think is happening is the root cause is police in large targeting a particular group wantonly, for absolutely no reason.  And you know this.

   How about actually having some constructive dialogue with some real live Black People about their experiences? We are out here. We would gladly share them with you, and then maybe just maybe you would come away with a different viewpoint.

[Thatguy 8502]

On 9/12/2020 at 2:47 PM, dcar00 said:

and of course you know that the police are run by local government and the general public is not the issue.  people don't blindly demand cops "crack skulls" of course you know that but it is a nice sound bite.  the people rioting aren't doing it because of your perceived, not living up to the social contract.  they are rioting because they like breaking shit, causing chaos, and/or free cell phones, jewlery, TV, and apparently bread.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

It's terrible that businesses are lost. I believe that the government should make those businesses economically whole (after relevant insurance) and provide wage protections to the workers who lose wages because of the disrupted business. Do the "BUT THE BUSINESSES!" types agree with me? Or are your outrages just ways for you to be angry at a group of people you were already going to be mad at? Is your sympathy hollow or real?

Not only should we provide financial protection, we should ensure against future looting/destruction by solving the problems that lead to these riots.

-----------------
And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
-----------------

If you actually want peace and tranquility, you should want justice for the historically oppressed black American population.

[Thatguy 8502]

On 9/12/2020 at 5:31 PM, 52-80 said:

Have people had enough of violence amongst the citizenry?  Can you explain why the mobs are protesting the anomalous events rather than acknowledging the root cause? 

   Lol. Deflection at it's best. As has been said ad nauseam, citizens get prosecuted by the law when they commit crimes. Officers toss out the victim's legal history, the public sees that as a justified reason to kill them, and the officers walk.

[Thatguy 8502]

On 9/12/2020 at 6:35 PM, 52-80 said:

Wapo compilation of police shootings since 2015:

 

80% involved victims armed with gun and/or knife.

6.3% were unarmed.  That works out to 6 per year.  In a nation of 300million people.  I'll just call that a wash.

 

95% were men though.  Who's got the pitchfork for sexism?

 

  And this thinking is the issue. It does not account for non gun deaths like Floyds. Nor does it account for anyone who has been physically assaulted by police officers. I don't think it even accounts for police shootings where they lived, like in the Jacob Blake case.

[52-80 19090]

17 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   How about actually having some constructive dialogue with some real live Black People about their experiences? We are out here. We would gladly share them with you, and then maybe just maybe you would come away with a different viewpoint.

We have an open discussion board for all dialogue.  What do you want to put forth?  I haven't seen any action put forth besides a lot of shouting about how everyone is racist and cops are pigs

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   Lol. Deflection at it's best. As has been said ad nauseam, citizens get prosecuted by the law when they commit crimes. Officers toss out the victim's legal history, the public sees that as a justified reason to kill them, and the officers walk.

That should not be happening, but John Q. public has very little control over that.  Localities don't even get proper control because of the whole Union contract, and shields from prosecution.   DA's dismissing charges gets big headlines, but I think their hands are often tied by the shield cops get. That needs too be addressed as well.    The issue is rooted in our history, racism, and how we don't deal with it socially now.  Local/city gov'ts  are more interested in building sporting arenas than fixing school systems.  There's no capitol in helping minorities as much as political parties claim to be for the common man. 

[Celery Man 20886]

12 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

We have an open discussion board for all dialogue.  What do you want to put forth?  I haven't seen any action put forth besides a lot of shouting about how everyone is racist and cops are pigs

hey do you think we're capable of mitigating the problem of violence in this country

[52-80 19090]

5 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  And this thinking is the issue. It does not account for non gun deaths like Floyds. Nor does it account for anyone who has been physically assaulted by police officers. I don't think it even accounts for police shootings where they lived, like in the Jacob Blake case.

 

This is compilation of all fatal police shootings by respectable national media.  If you think it omits in-home shooting, feel free to present better numbers.

How many Floyd like non-gun death are there?  You think a fatal beating or choking would go unnoticed?  Again, present your own numbers.

I'm countering the notion that police are shooting unarmed people willy nilly.  That is the argument.  If you want to talk about other forms of assaults, start a different discussion.

[alincoln 2364]

Will the current white protesters hate themselves like they hate the Boomers when they turn into them in 10 years?

[BabaYaga 15212]

42 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   How about actually having some constructive dialogue with some real live Black People about their experiences? We are out here. We would gladly share them with you, and then maybe just maybe you would come away with a different viewpoint.

We have.  Guess what, most are vehemently opposed to the looting and destruction.  You mention the Civil Rights perception.  A Harris poll taken in 1967 noted that 67% of the black community viewed the looters are "criminals" and a detriment to the goals of the movement.  A sentiment overwhelmingly shared again today.  Many feel the movement has lost it's message because all anyone sees or understands are the looting and rioters; often in bad faith by outside actors who do not even live in the impacted communities they profess to support

Community Impact of the riots of the 60s

Quote

Collins and Margo found the riots of the 1960s “depressed the median value of Black-owned property between 1960 and 1970, with little or no rebound in the 1970s.” The riots caused an estimated 10 percent loss in the total value of Black-owned residential property in American urban areas, widening the racial gap in property values. Black Americans often shared the belief that the riots had hurt their own communities.

 

[Celery Man 20886]

You may have missed it but that also describes everyone in this thread

[Brisketexan 104609]

Just now, Celery Man said:

You may have missed it but that also describes everyone in this thread

Yep.

Except there is a division here.  

1) Those who see the violence for what it is -- something that we very, very much don't want, and something that was utterly and completely predictable and goddamit we just fucking wish that the powers-that-be would stop taking/allowing action by armed agents of the state that will inevitably trigger such shit, and

2) Those who use the existence of violence and rioting to discredit an entire movement, and to provide fuel for their position that really, there's nothing to complain about, so why are those people protesting anyway?

Rioting is illegal and wrong.  It causes great harm.  It's a bad thing, and we shouldn't want it to happen, and we should want it to stop.

Policing in this country is fucking broken - it's broken all the way around (not just shootings, and not just against minorities), but it's PARTICULARLY broken when it comes to black people.  We the people -- all of us, because the cops work for all of us -- need to draw a hard line and say "no fucking more of this bullshit."

That approach will solve BOTH problems (shitty cops AND violent unrest in response to shitty cops).  Seems like the smart path.

[Thatguy 8502]

Just now, 52-80 said:

We have an open discussion board for all dialogue.  What do you want to put forth?  I haven't seen any action put forth besides a lot of shouting about how everyone is racist and cops are pigs

   I have had dialogue on my personal dealings with police on this board.

     I am 17 years old. I am looking around our apt for a hotrod magazine I had so I can dream about some car I would like to build. Realize I left it in the car. Walk  out to the car, no shirt on and no shoes. Open the car and start rummaging around. I grab the magazine and turn around to a gun 1 foot away from my face. Freeze motherfucker, he says. He accuses me of breaking in the car. I am holding the keys in my hand. It should've ended there, but did it? No. He asks for ID. I told him I did not have it but we could go in the house and get it because I lived right there. He said no. He tossed me on the car and cuffed me. He told me I was going to jail if I couldn't prove I lived there. My mom wasn't home. I remembered her telling me she was leaving, but wasn't paying attention to where she said she was going. So I tell him my moms friend lives in the next building. He walks me over there in handcuffs and we knock. My mom answered the door, saw me in cuffs, and proceeds to give the officer the business.

   A couple years ago I am leaving U of H Clearlake's campus. I walk across the campus back to my car. Mind you, I am far removed from that 17 year old in the story above. I am wearing the Snacks traditional grey slacks and oxford. Classic corporate Black Guy almost bald with no facial hair. I see the campus police sitting there looking at me. I get into my Audi and drive away. Campus police immediately pull behind me and follow me off campus, all the way down Bay Area before pulling me over to investigate why I was on the campus.

  These stories are a huge difference in socioeconomic level and 20+ years apart. The only difference is in the latter they realized I was old and financially stable enough that they probably at least should be cautious about how they treated me. However, the message in both was the same. I have about 25 of these with varying degrees of violence or ridiculousness just with police. Or we could talk about the time my brother got physically thrown from the inside of a camper display inside the mall(you know how they sometimes have cars and such in there). He was curious and 9. Looked inside. The guy showing it picked him up and threw him out. My dad, as any dad should, hit him. Another Black guy with an assault charge. Sales guy got nothing for assaulting a Black Child.

 

  This is what it is for Black People in this country. We fear police and for good reason, because these are our experiences with them. My White Mother and Father in Law realized the extent of it when we were looking at a house in an area with few, if any, Black people. We had already been shown the property, but they were in town and wanted to see it, so we went by with no realtor. Detached 4 car garage with a pool in the backyard. He wanted to see it, so he opened the gate and walked right back there. I stayed where I was. He motioned for me to follow. I said, yeah no. He saw in my eyes what it was so he continued on. I can afford a house here, but there are certain protocols a Black Guy has to follow. I am not trying to die while combing over a potential home purchase.

[BabaYaga 15212]

4 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

You may have missed it but that also describes everyone in this thread

"Everyone".....You're right.  There has been no push-back about these "mostly peaceful protests".  No false equivalencies between "life" and "property".  No defense of months of property destruction or justification for the actions of these mobs.  Nothing of the sort.   No support as they escalate to the loss of both property and life or assertions that before..."we tried it your way".  Yep, none of that....

[Thatguy 8502]

43 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That should not be happening, but John Q. public has very little control over that.  Localities don't even get proper control because of the whole Union contract, and shields from prosecution.   DA's dismissing charges gets big headlines, but I think their hands are often tied by the shield cops get. That needs too be addressed as well.    The issue is rooted in our history, racism, and how we don't deal with it socially now.  Local/city gov'ts  are more interested in building sporting arenas than fixing school systems.  There's no capitol in helping minorities as much as political parties claim to be for the common man. 

100% agree. The solution if getting loud enough that the elected officials take notice. A few years ago Kap got blackballed for taking a knee. The outcries got louder and the tune changed. People take a hard stance when they feel like they are the majority. When they feel like they are the minority on a thought, they become a little more self aware. That's how change happens and why protesting works. Unfortunately rioting seems to be a byproduct.

[Celery Man 20886]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

"Everyone".....You're right.  There has been no push-back about these "mostly peaceful protests".  No false equivalencies between "life" and "property".  No defense of months of property destruction or justification for the actions of these mobs.  Nothing of the sort.   No support as they escalate to the loss of both property and life or assertions that before..."we tried it your way".  Yep, none of that....

I'm not sure where you're trying to place the goal post now, but nobody here is or has been supportive of rioting and the destruction of property, or the taking of human life by anyone.  This quote - 

Quote

most are vehemently opposed to the looting and destruction.  You mention the Civil Rights perception.  A Harris poll taken in 1967 noted that 67% of the black community viewed the looters are "criminals" and a detriment to the goals of the movement.  A sentiment overwhelmingly shared again today.  Many feel the movement has lost it's message because all anyone sees or understands are the looting and rioters; often in bad faith by outside actors who do not even live in the impacted communities they profess to support

there's some complexity in the last sentence but generally that quote describes everyone in this thread who you're arguing at.

[Thatguy 8502]

37 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

 

This is compilation of all fatal police shootings by respectable national media.  If you think it omits in-home shooting, feel free to present better numbers.

How many Floyd like non-gun death are there?  You think a fatal beating or choking would go unnoticed?  Again, present your own numbers.

I'm countering the notion that police are shooting unarmed people willy nilly.  That is the argument.  If you want to talk about other forms of assaults, start a different discussion.

Jacob Blake was not fatal, therefore not counted. There have been at least two Floyd's this year, and those are just the ones we saw on video. Daniel Prude was one of them. In case you are forgetting this IS the riots and protests thread. All of those are valid reasons for what is happening. It's not just only about fatal police shootings. All others count too.

[BabaYaga 15212]

1 minute ago, Thatguy said:

A few years ago Kap got blackballed for taking a knee.

Stop.  Tell the whole story.  He did nothing of the sort when he was a starter and in the limelight.  Then defenses figured him out and he lost his job to frickin' Blaine Gabbert, that I think isn't even in the league anymore.  He was subsequently offered multiple contracts as a backup, that he turned down because his ego would not let him entertain the idea of making less money and being on the bench.  He was given multiple opportunities to play.  Had he possessed the skill-set of a starter, all the fanfare is justified, but not for a so-so backup 

[Brisketexan 104609]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

It's not broken particularly against black people 

It's working exactly as designed against ALL fucking people 

You're a fucking race hate propagation machine.

So, degree and proportion don't matter?  Because if there's an outfit out there that gets away with jamming broomsticks up people's asses, you are damned well going to appreciate the fact that you are in the class of people who 1) only get the stick jammed up their asses once every couple of years, instead of 1-2 times a year, and 2) only gets it jammed up 5 inches instead of 10.

Cops are bad to all American citizens.  They are worse to black American citizens.  For all the bad shit that cops do/have done to you, change your skin color, and you can double those experiences, or better.  You know this.

[bad_teammate 13132]

The distinction between life and property is not false.

It's almost clinical insanity to not be able to distinguish between the two.

-----------

On the outrage front, the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic. If we can assign a name and humanity to one victim who is victimized in a video we can see it will resonate more in us than knowing that 10,000 unnamed and faceless and unrecorded men suffered the same. It's just human nature.

It might very well be the case that there would be less protest and civil disturbance if police killings were more common. Humans are not cold machines of rational calculation.

Edited September 14, 2020 by bad_teammate

[Thatguy 8502]

29 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

We have.  Guess what, most are vehemently opposed to the looting and destruction.  You mention the Civil Rights perception.  A Harris poll taken in 1967 noted that 67% of the black community viewed the looters are "criminals" and a detriment to the goals of the movement.  A sentiment overwhelmingly shared again today.  Many feel the movement has lost it's message because all anyone sees or understands are the looting and rioters; often in bad faith by outside actors who do not even live in the impacted communities they profess to support

Community Impact of the riots of the 60s

 

   People on this very board feel the same way about looting. You seem to be equating understanding why it's happening with supporting it.

 

   Secondly, being a Black Man I have had plenty of dialogue with plenty of Black People about how they felt about things back then. I can tell you that people didn't like the riots, but understood them just the same. At the end of the day, they ended up working.

[Brisketexan 104609]

Just now, BurntEyes said:

But to create change we must, absolutely 100% get all of the US behind it and addressing it for what it is, as US problem rather than just a black problem is the only way to do that and YOU know this. You're continued fostering of division by specific alignment only to a black issue is HURTING the movement. You are a part of the problem, not part of the solution, and you know this too.

So carry on with your divisiveness and helping to hinder change by embracing identity politics. 

 

I mean.....black people have been telling the rest of us for decades that we had a problem with the police.  But we ignored them/told them to STFU.  Because so long as it mostly affected them AND it was just them TELLING us things (as opposed to us seeing actual police misconduct, on video, over and over and over)....we could ignore them, because it was the lazy, comfortable, and privileged thing to do.

Black people have borne and continue to bear disproportionate harm from shitty policing, right now.

As far as "US" goes.....am I wrong for thinking that we are a society, and that when one segment of our society is getting a raw deal, that harms the whole?  We should want black people to be treated equally because that's a key element of a well-functioning society.  IF my neighbor is in the shit, it hurts our whole community.

I don't disagree that shitty cops are also a DIRECT problem for all of us.....but to suggest that we just skip right past and ignore the shitty deal that black people have had and continue to have with the cops is just more of the same: ignore their particular problem, and tell them to STFU.  That's a shitty thing to do to our fellow man, our fellow citizens.  We shouldn't have done that for decades, we shouldn't do it now.  

Both of these things can be true.  We have broken policing, period.  We have a particular problem with that broken policing and the attendant "justice system" with respect to how they deal with black people.  They are both true.  We need to address both of them.

[Thatguy 8502]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I mean.....black people have been telling the rest of us for decades that we had a problem with the police.  But we ignored them/told them to STFU.  Because so long as it mostly affected them AND it was just them TELLING us things (as opposed to us seeing actual police misconduct, on video, over and over and over)....we could ignore them, because it was the lazy, comfortable, and privileged thing to do.

Black people have borne and continue to bear disproportionate harm from shitty policing, right now.

As far as "US" goes.....am I wrong for thinking that we are a society, and that when one segment of our society is getting a raw deal, that harms the whole?  We should want black people to be treated equally because that's a key element of a well-functioning society.  IF my neighbor is in the shit, it hurts our whole community.

I don't disagree that shitty cops are also a DIRECT problem for all of us.....but to suggest that we just skip right past and ignore the shitty deal that black people have had and continue to have with the cops is just more of the same: ignore their particular problem, and tell them to STFU.  That's a shitty thing to do to our fellow man, our fellow citizens.  We shouldn't have done that for decades, we shouldn't do it now.  

Both of these things can be true.  We have broken policing, period.  We have a particular problem with that broken policing and the attendant "justice system" with respect to how they deal with black people.  They are both true.  We need to address both of them.

[Rougarou 594]

On 9/12/2020 at 1:31 PM, Rougarou said:

 

 

I mean you can ridicule if it’s easier for you than to engage, but it’s lazy. Serious answer, yes I totally believe that the people rioting are people fed up with not moving the needle in peaceful ways. As do people like brisket, etc. from what I understand?

 

On 9/12/2020 at 1:15 PM, bad_teammate said:

It's easy to tear down strawmen that you build yourself.

Do you actually, sincerely believe that the people rioting are just people who are jaded after a long period of peaceful struggle? Do you even believe the arguments you make or are you trolling?

And just like in MLK's time, the people rioting aren't the same people as the ones who are peacefully protesting. As he discussed and talked about himself.

Or for more modern explanation...

He just leaving and he screamin' Jesus
(He had the highest hopes, he had the highest hopes)
People yellin', screamin' at polices
(Riots tonight, riots tonight)
Burnin', lootin', shootin', takin', thievin'
(Fire and light, fire and light)
Fill the air and most don't know the reason
(Never knew his name, never knew his name)
But they know his problems and feel his pain
(Shit's still the same, shit's still the same)
We just prey off in they deadly game
(It'll never change, it'll never change)

Riots are what you get when the needs of the people are not being met. Revolution is what happens when rioting gets organized and focuses on overthrowing government.

 

I want to come back to this because I feel it fell through the cracks over the weekend: Am I misunderstanding or are you really ridiculing my stance and understanding that the people who are rioting are those who have been jaded and frustrated with the ineffectiveness of non-violence/BLM protesting? Because that is exactly what BrisketTexan and everyone else keeps trying to tell us by way of "I don't like it but non-violence isn't working and the SoCiAl CoNtrAcTz iz BrOkEn sO wHaT dO yOu ExPeCt!?!"? 

Edited September 14, 2020 by Rougarou

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

 

 

I want to come back to this because I feel it fell through the cracks over the weekend: Am I misunderstanding or are you really ridiculing my stance and understanding that the people who are rioting are those who have been jaded and frustrated with the ineffectiveness of non-violence/BLM protesting? Because that is exactly what BrisketTexan and everyone else keeps trying to tell us by way of "I don't like it but non-violence isn't working and the SoCiAl CoNtrAcTz iz BrOkEn sO wHaT dO yOu ExPeCt!?!"? 

Apparently there is no social contract between citizens to not fuck up each others shit....  who knew......

[Brisketexan 104609]

1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

 

 

I want to come back to this because I feel it fell through the cracks over the weekend: Am I misunderstanding or are you really ridiculing my stance and understanding that the people who are rioting are those who have been jaded and frustrated with the ineffectiveness of non-violence/BLM protesting? Because that is exactly what BrisketTexan and everyone else keeps trying to tell us by way of "I don't like it but non-violence isn't working and the SoCiAl CoNtrAcTz iz BrOkEn sO wHaT dO yOu ExPeCt!?!"? 

No, that's not the complete picture of what I am saying.  Yes, riots are the language of the unheard....but they are also attractive as shit to the "shitty and opportunistic."

For example, people turning over police cars, and throwing shit at police stations....that's the kind of behavior you'd expect to see from people who are sick of this shit, and feel like they're out of options.

People smashing and burning a Wendy's, or smashing the windows of Best Buy and walking out with a new TV.....are "shitty and opportunistic."

Civil unrest/chaos feeds on itself.  When law and order breaks down, and people feel like they have exhausted all peaceful means of raising their grievances, then we see 1) cop cars get turned over and such.  But then, once we have an environment where cops cars are getting turned over and such, we have 2) the shitheels and opportunists come out of the woodwork to loot and burn shit.  It's a cascade.

It starts with the breakdown of the rule of law, which is the embodiment of the social contract: a mutually agreed-upon set of rules that applies to everyone, equally.  Once that breaks down, then all kinds of stuff flows, and some of becomes really, really shitty (note -- the reason we HAVE the rule of law is to prevent/mitigate the occurrence of things that are "really, really shitty," so the sequence makes perfect sense).

[Brisketexan 104609]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Apparently there is no social contract between citizens to not fuck up each others shit....  who knew......

There is.  It's called the Rule of Law.  BUT, when the Rule of Law is applied in the following way:

With respect to the disfavored class, the law binds them, but does not protect them, but

With respect to the favored class, the law protects them but does not bind them......

.....the contract, embodied by the Rule of Law, is broken.  Again, setting aside the shitheels and opportunists (who are the reason we have the Rule of Law -- to deal with those outliers), this is what you have.  Police and the power structure that supports them gets the disproportionately high benefit of the law, and a disproportionately low restriction by the law.  Black people get the opposite.  And, as Burnt Eyes notes, in comparison to the "above the law" nature of the police, we ALL get the opposite.  That's how you break the social contract.

If Mr. Black Guy does something and faces consequences for it, then the same should be true for 1) Mr. White Guy and 2) Mr. Cop.

And if Mr. White Guy or Mr. Cop does something and gets to skate on it, then the same should be true for Mr. Black Guy.

That's a functioning social contract.  We don't have that.

[TwiceHorn 31273]

To continue the social contract analogy, once the contract is breached, it no longer binds either party.

Only a sucker continues to adhere to a breached contract.

[Brisketexan 104609]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

To continue the social contract analogy, once the contract is breached, it no longer binds either party.

Only a sucker continues to adhere to a breached contract.

This.  Thanks for that follow-up.  That's how the law works, and the law works that way because common sense and reason work that way.

Once you fail to deliver me my widgets, in breach of your contract obligation, I am released from my contract obligation to pay you (which makes sense -- why would I pay you for something you never delivered?)

Breach of contract by Party A excuses any further performance by Party B.  If you want Party B to do what he is obligated to do (e.g., pay you), then Party A needs to meet his obligations (e.g., deliver the widgets).

That legal rule reflects human nature -- a contract is where you promise to do something for me, and I promise to do something for me.  If you don't do what you promised to do for me, why would I do what I promised to do for you?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There is.  It's called the Rule of Law.  BUT, when the Rule of Law is applied in the following way:

With respect to the disfavored class, the law binds them, but does not protect them, but

With respect to the favored class, the law protects them but does not bind them......

.....the contract, embodied by the Rule of Law, is broken.  Again, setting aside the shitheels and opportunists (who are the reason we have the Rule of Law -- to deal with those outliers), this is what you have.  Police and the power structure that supports them gets the disproportionately high benefit of the law, and a disproportionately low restriction by the law.  Black people get the opposite.  And, as Burnt Eyes notes, in comparison to the "above the law" nature of the police, we ALL get the opposite.  That's how you break the social contract.

If Mr. Black Guy does something and faces consequences for it, then the same should be true for 1) Mr. White Guy and 2) Mr. Cop.

And if Mr. White Guy or Mr. Cop does something and gets to skate on it, then the same should be true for Mr. Black Guy.

That's a functioning social contract.  We don't have that.

That's a lot of words to try, and defend people smashing up other peoples property, or physically attacking them, and you failed mightily I might add.

[Rougarou 594]

So, the sympathetic view of "Rioters are leveled-up non-violent protesters who are just escalating because their cause is just and they are not being heard or cared about is actually not true then? It's "Rioters are shitheads and heels and the alt-right is right about them, but we still tacitly defend them for some reason."?

I'm just not following and it would have been helpful if Badteammate would have finished his thought or completed his point instead of dangling some sort of inside joke or rhetorical question that I was not on the inside to understand.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To continue the social contract analogy, once the contract is breached, it no longer binds either party.

Only a sucker continues to adhere to a breached contract.

As a lawyer, you understand what a "breached contract" looks like. This ain't it.

[TwiceHorn 31273]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Thanks for that follow-up.  That's how the law works, and the law works that way because common sense and reason work that way.

Once you fail to deliver me my widgets, in breach of your contract obligation, I am released from my contract obligation to pay you (which makes sense -- why would I pay you for something you never delivered?)

Breach of contract by Party A excuses any further performance by Party B.  If you want Party B to do what he is obligated to do (e.g., pay you), then Party A needs to meet his obligations (e.g., deliver the widgets).

That legal rule reflects human nature -- a contract is where you promise to do something for me, and I promise to do something for me.  If you don't do what you promised to do for me, why would I do what I promised to do for you?

And, only the breaching party can tender an offer to cure the breach.  Not much the non-breaching party can do to restore the contract.

So, if you continue that analogy, the "fault" lies primarily and permanently with the breaching party, until the breaching party takes steps to cure the breach, or the parties enter into a new contract.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Why are you confronting me with something Brisket said? Do you think we're the same person? Are you trolling?

The people rioting are not the same people as the ones peacefully protesting. The rioters and looters are not people who have spent years in active peaceful struggle. The people rioting and looting are, generally speaking, people who are normally not engaged with political or social action. They were a powder keg of disorganized, inchoate anger and resentment going about their daily lives and Derek Chauvin threw a match into the keg.

That is the nature of the riot.

When the masses rise up in rebellion, is it because the masses spend all day reading tracts about political theory? No, it's because the government takes away their bread or conscripts their sons. The ranting scholar and the pitchfork-yeoman rebel are different things. The peaceful march is organized and a point of fellowship and mutual affirmation; thousands and thousands saying, "Let's all go here and march from X to Y and then we'll have these speakers and on and on....". The riot is disorganized, immediate, and unplanned.

They are completely different things.

If you don't understand the distinction, you've probably never been involved with people who peacefully protest and people who riot.

Just read the damned speech, he explains it all to you beautifully and plainly. Stop trolling for a fight and try to learn.

[Rougarou 594]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, only the breaching party can tender an offer to cure the breach.  Not much the non-breaching party can do to restore the contract.

So, if you continue that analogy, the "fault" lies primarily and permanently with the breaching party, until the breaching party takes steps to cure the breach, or the parties enter into a new contract.

Either you use all of the analogy or you don't use any of it, right?

If you fail to provide me widgets and the contract is broken, I can then sue or take my business elsewhere or whatever non-violently and legally.

I can't burn your factory down because the widget you delivered killed my son because it has a bug that kills only customers with sickle cells or something unique to blacks versus whites. And nobody would justify or rationalize that behavior either.

[Rougarou 594]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why are you confronting me with something Brisket said? Do you think we're the same person? Are you trolling?

The people rioting are not the same people as the ones peacefully protesting. The rioters and looters are not people who have spent years in active peaceful struggle. The people rioting and looting are, generally speaking, people who are normally not engaged with political or social action. They were a powder keg of disorganized, inchoate anger and resentment going about their daily lives and Derek Chauvin threw a match into the keg.

That is the nature of the riot.

When the masses rise up in rebellion, is it because the masses spend all day reading tracts about political theory? No, it's because the government takes away their bread or conscripts their sons. The ranting scholar and the pitchfork-yeoman rebel are different things. The peaceful march is organized and a point of fellowship and mutual affirmation; thousands and thousands saying, "Let's all go here and march from X to Y and then we'll have these speakers and on and on....". The riot is disorganized, immediate, and unplanned.

They are completely different things.

If you don't understand the distinction, you've probably never been involved with people who peacefully protest and people who riot.

Just read the damned speech, he explains it all to you beautifully and plainly. Stop trolling for a fight and try to learn.

I'm not trolling for a fight, more like trawling for understanding. And this post went a long ways to providing some clarity. You, of course, are not obligated to put forth the effort, but it's helpful-- a sight bit more than undecipherable sarcasm or passive aggression.

[TwiceHorn 31273]

2 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Either you use all of the analogy or you don't use any of it, right?

If you fail to provide me widgets and the contract is broken, I can then sue or take my business elsewhere or whatever non-violently and legally.

I can't burn your factory down because the widget you delivered killed my son because it has a bug that kills only customers with sickle cells or something unique to blacks versus whites. And nobody would justify or rationalize that behavior either.

I'm not concerning myself with the subject matter or terms of the contract, just what happens when there's a breach.

A social contract "underlies" all good and "legal" behavior.  

[bad_teammate 13132]

A young boy is in Target throwing toys all over the ground and smashing them. The father vacillates between pretending not to see what is happening and violently slapping his son in the face.

When I see that, I see a failed parent who needs to gain control of himself so he can raise his son better. I'm more angry at the father than I am the child.

[Rougarou 594]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

A young boy is in Target throwing toys all over the ground and smashing them. The father vacillates between pretending not to see what is happening and violently slapping his son in the face.

When I see that, I see a failed parent who needs to gain control of himself so he can raise his son better. I'm more angry at the father than I am the child.

 

[Incredulity 11564]

Lawyers arguing the remedies for breach of the "Social Contract".

 

Peak Surly

[Brisketexan 104609]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That's a lot of words to try, and defend people smashing up other peoples property, or physically attacking them, and you failed mightily I might add.

I mean, other than the fact that I didn't defend it, sure.  Your reply is a complete straw man.

Let me make it simpler: when you tell people that the rules don't apply, they hear you and will take you seriously. 

Letting cops routinely do so (killings, beatings, routinely lying under oath) with minimal consequences says just that.  The people who hear that message are not some monolithic group.  Some of them WANT the rules to apply (thus, the protesting and anger at the police).  Others say "sweet, no rules!" and go out and steal and break shit.  Both outcomes flow from the "no rules" message.  It's a natural consequence that many people have warned against for decades

12 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

So, the sympathetic view of "Rioters are leveled-up non-violent protesters who are just escalating because their cause is just and they are not being heard or cared about is actually not true then? It's "Rioters are shitheads and heels and the alt-right is right about them, but we still tacitly defend them for some reason."?

I'm just not following and it would have been helpful if Badteammate would have finished his thought or completed his point instead of dangling some sort of inside joke or rhetorical question that I was not on the inside to understand.

Nope.  "Unrest," in the broadest sense that y'all are using it, is connected with both groups.  Targeted anger and violence -- eg, flipping over cop cars -- while still illegal and most all of us would strongly prefer that shit not come down to that -- flows from the unheard who WANT the rule of law.  They WANT equality and fairness.  They WANT consequences...for everyone.

Chaos, looting, and burning everything....is the ground of the shitheels, the opportunists, the alt-right, etc.  They don't want the Rule of Law -- they revel in and thrive when it breaks down.  So, two agendas that are actually in opposition, both fall under your broad umbrella.

[workswithseed 2036]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A young boy is in Target throwing toys all over the ground and smashing them. The father vacillates between pretending not to see what is happening and violently slapping his son in the face.

When I see that, I see a failed parent who needs to gain control of himself so he can raise his son better. I'm more angry at the father than I am the child.

I'm not gonna lie here, the state being a dad, and the citizens described as children really doesn't sit right with me. 

[Brisketexan 104609]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I'm not gonna lie here, the state being a dad, and the citizens described as children really doesn't sit right with me. 

It shouldn't.  Maybe that's the underlying problem here.

We've given "Dad" weapons out the ass (say, a belt), allowed him to discipline the children however he wants, whenever he wants, with no repercussions.  When in reality, the kids are the real parties in interest, and Dad should have only that authority necessary to actually protect the children and discipline them as is in their best interests -- as the "children" established by the rules they enacted.

The real power lies with the "children," and a shitload of them are actually rising up and saying that.  They are saying fuck this shit, Dad works for US, he can't fucking beat us with a belt and get away with it -- WE tell "Dad" what he can and can't do, and we've had enough of the violent beatings with no consequences.

So, yes, you should be disturbed....and if you are, welcome to the protest.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean, other than the fact that I didn't defend it, sure.  Your reply is a complete straw man.

Let me make it simpler: when you tell people that the rules don't apply, they hear you and will take you seriously. 

Letting cops routinely do so (killings, beatings, routinely lying under oath) with minimal consequences says just that.  The people who hear that message are not some monolithic group.  Some of them WANT the rules to apply (thus, the protesting and anger at the police).  Others say "sweet, no rules!" and go out and steal and break shit.  Both outcomes flow from the "no rules" message.  It's a natural consequence that many people have warned against for decades

Nope.  "Unrest," in the broadest sense that y'all are using it, is connected with both groups.  Targeted anger and violence -- eg, flipping over cop cars -- while still illegal and most all of us would strongly prefer that shit not come down to that -- flows from the unheard who WANT the rule of law.  They WANT equality and fairness.  They WANT consequences...for everyone.

Chaos, looting, and burning everything....is the ground of the shitheels, the opportunists, the alt-right, etc.  They don't want the Rule of Law -- they revel in and thrive when it breaks down.  So, two agendas that are actually in opposition, both fall under your broad umbrella.

I'm not letting cops do anything. The local governing body has the responsibility of overseeing police departments.  As a voting citizen I rely on them to do the job they were elected to do. How many mayors of cities across the country have attempted to show support for the protests even when they were turning violent ?  several, and in most cases they ended up getting bitten on their own hand by the very people they were cheering  on.  THAT is where the breach of a social contract is taking place.  Our duly elected officials taking social positions that have only worsened the situation this Summer, and caused them to abdicate their sworn duty to the locality they've been elected to govern. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'm not gonna lie here, the state being a dad, and the citizens described as children really doesn't sit right with me. 

Fucking A right bubba......  I have parents, I don't need dysfunctional ones to boot.

[hobbes2702 12826]

33 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That's a lot of words to try, and defend people smashing up other peoples property, or physically attacking them, and you failed mightily I might add.

How is that your interpretation of what was written?

[BabaYaga 15212]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm not letting cops do anything. The local governing body has the responsibility of overseeing police departments.  As a voting citizen I rely on them to do the job they were elected to do. How many mayors of cities across the country have attempted to show support for the protests even when they were turning violent ?  several, and in most cases they ended up getting bitten on their own hand by the very people they were cheering  on.  THAT is where the breach of a social contract is taking place.  Our duly elected officials taking social positions that have only worsened the situation this Summer, and caused them to abdicate their sworn duty to the locality they've been elected to govern. 

That is until the mob threatened them and the pivot was immediate - see the Mayor of Seattle and Chicago.