"A riot is the language of the unheard"

[Sunstone]

Whether riots are right or wrong interests me less than the fact that it would be foolish not to expect them if you disenfranchise a large segment of the population such that riots become their recourse. Those whose voices are excluded from the political process will find a way to be heard. That's to be expected. The solution is not to moralistically cluck at them for doing what you yourself would probably do if you were in their shoes, but to bring them into the political process.

 

[columbus]

You really don't know of any?
I've seen many such demonstrations during the Viet Nam war.
I say they worked.

Not everyone is as elderly as you are. As a staunch opponent of the Iraq Invasion I didn't find them too effective. The world is different from when you were a lad.

Here's one way to see this. If you have enough unheard and disenfranchised people, some of them are guaranteed to be violent. So every time you, habiru, esmith et al insist that millions of urban voters need to be disenfranchised so that the handful of rural white voters in Wyoming and the Dakotas and Idaho and such get notice y'all are effectively advocating for riots. You might not think that this should be, is effective, or whatever. But given human limitations it is true. Whenever y'all say "Democracy doesn't matter in the USA presidential election " it's encouraging people to be heard some other way.
Tom

 

[Thief]

Also, property destruction is not violence. In many cases it is certainly problematic, but it is not attacking somebody.

tell that to my insurance company!

 

[Revoltingest]

Not everyone is as elderly as you are.

And I hereby curse them with a wish for their becoming as old & even older.
Booowwhahahahahhahahahahhah, etc!

As a staunch opponent of the Iraq Invasion I didn't find them too effective. The world is different from when you were a lad.

A problem with the Iraq war was that many of the protests were based upon the war being Dubya's.
Once the war became Obama's, they stopped protesting.
Too many people actually supported the war.
The VN war was different....both Pub & Dem presidents saw strong resistance.

Here's one way to see this. If you have enough unheard and disenfranchised people, some of them are guaranteed to be violent. So every time you, habiru, esmith et al insist that millions of urban voters need to be disenfranchised so that the handful of rural white voters in Wyoming and the Dakotas and Idaho and such get notice y'all are effectively advocating for riots. You might not think that this should be, is effective, or whatever. But given human limitations it is true. Whenever y'all say "Democracy doesn't matter in the USA presidential election " it's encouraging people to be heard some other way.
Tom

I don't have any influence over anyone else anyway.
I'm just opining about what I see as the best approach.

 

[Sunstone]

I think he uses deceptive language to make rioting sound wholesome. When there is another answer for the "unheard", and that is to shut up and join the silent majority.

Studies show the American public is generally left of you, Kemosloby, on most key political issues. I don't see you shutting up and joining them. Are you playing the hypocrite, then?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think a riot, like any large crowd dynamic which contains feedback elements, is too complex to simplify down to one cause, motivation, or goal. Defining riots solely as some kind of act of moral justice is rather naive, but defining them solely as acts of wanton violence, destruction, and theft is excessively cynical. Either way, crowd dynamics have a way of taking on a life and shape of their own, apart from whatever the individuals who comprise might think their motivations or goals are.

Of course, MLK's point was supposed to be poignant and rhetorical, rather than a sociological analysis of riots. You motivate and galvanize people through imagery and emotion, not complex factual analysis.

 

[Kemosloby]

Studies show the American public is generally left of you, Kemosloby, on most key political issues. I don't see you shutting up and joining them. Are you playing the hypocrite, then?

No, im typing, which is silent.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The UK definition of "riot" would be bunk then.
I personally don't like any crowds....but if they're peaceful, then they're OK with me.

It is an ancient law defined in common law. So is probably buried somewhere in your own law. the only good thing about it is that it works.
Very few disturbances are declared to be riots in the UK, The last one I can remember was during the Miners strike in Thatchers time, but there might be more recent ones.

The Police have learned how to control even angry crowds with out the use of firearms or water canon. The use of water canon is illegal in the UK. London bought some in recent years and had to sell them again.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is an ancient law defined in common law. So is probably buried somewhere in your own law. the only good thing about it is that it works.
Very few disturbances are declared to be riots in the UK, The last one I can remember was during the Miners strike in Thatchers time, but there might be more recent ones.

The Police have learned how to control even angry crowds with out the use of firearms or water canon. The use of water canon is illegal in the UK. London bought some in recent years and had to sell them again.

An assault version of a Super Soaker.....I want one!

 

[Kirran]

Very few disturbances are declared to be riots in the UK, The last one I can remember was during the Miners strike in Thatchers time, but there might be more recent ones.

And that's an example of when the establishment managed to put down legitimate protests, while also successfully villifying them to much of the public. They're working hard to do the same with BLM right now in the USA.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And that's an example of when the establishment managed to put down legitimate protests, while also successfully villifying them to much of the public. They're working hard to do the same with BLM right now in the USA.

That's like someone working hard to make people think that skunks smell bad.

 

[pearl]

It would seem there has to be bloodshed before being heard. After passing the Civil Rights Act Lyndon Johnson was asked by Martin Luther King for the right to vote. It wasn't until the bloodshed of Mar 1965, Montgomery, that the Voting Rights Act passed in Aug 1965.
But there's always the other element that simply wants a reason to act out.

Neighborhoods purposely left out when it comes to pharmacies and grocery chains give just cause, but only blind stupidity destroys the few stores they have gained.

 

[Kirran]

That's like someone working hard to make people think that skunks smell bad.

We disagree incredibly strongly here then.

In all such cases, everyone looking back 20 years down the line finds it mind-boggling that these movements came up against such resistance. This is true of the Suffragists, of the African-American civil rights movement, of the gay liberation movement...

 

[esmith]

ever hear of "mob mentality"
a peaceful demonstration can turn into a riot with the ejection of the right stimulus provided by one or more parties. The problem is that when it starts it spreads very rapidly and even those that would not normally act in a destructive manner are caught-up in the events. Humans can revert to primitive/animal instincts at times. Ask yourself one question. Have you ever been in a situation where the fight-or-flight instinct takes control over your mind and it is almost uncontrollable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ever been in or near a riot?

Rarely. I do my best to avoid it. They are inherently dangerous to people who don't deserve the consequences.

The violence is usually directed towards people & things who don't deserve it.
If a rioter burned down your business or beat you, would you think to yourself.....
"Justice is served!"

I very much doubt it.

The victims of rioting did no wrong, but they have no face, so they garner no sympathy.
Rioters have no excuse to make them scapegoats & objects of their violent anger.

Except when they do. Historically, that happened often.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except when they do. Historically, that happened often.

I disagree that there is ever good reason to intentionally attack the innocent.

 

[LuisDantas]

I disagree that there is ever good reason to intentionally attack the innocent.

I can't help but remember your support of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki again.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't help but remember your support of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki again.

It was a war.
The Japanese deserved to be defeated as quickly as possible.
Nuking them did exactly that.

Remember....
I'm a non-aggressionist.....not necessarily opposed to all violence.
Ie, violence is a last resort...not the default first action.

 

[columbus]

A problem with the Iraq war was that many of the protests were based upon the war being Dubya's.
Once the war became Obama's, they stopped protesting.

How typical.
You respond to my point by bringing up a partisan false equivalency.

By the time Obama was elected there weren't many demonstrations. The disaster was a done deal.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

It was a war.
The Japanese deserved to be defeated as quickly as possible.
Nuking them did exactly that.

Remember....
I'm a non-aggressionist.....not necessarily opposed to all violence.
Ie, violence is a last resort...not the default first action.

If you say so. I don't really agree, but I still think you are contradicting your previous claim anyway.