"A riot is the language of the unheard"

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

The whole miners issue was part of Thatchers overall political agenda. It was just one aspect of her diabolical fight, to break the unions, even if it also destroyed an industry

A nephew was a policeman co-opted to that battle, the overtime and expenses involved bought him a brand new car. He is a huge man, and was used, for show, at hot spots, though he never actually raised a finger.
He rather more sympathised with the strikers.
The now ex -husband of a niece was also there. He was a special duty firearms officer. he was extremely right wing and "Enjoyed" himself, or so he said.
Thankfully politically provoked Riots are extremely rare.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I recommend expanding your repertoire.
To cry "false equivalency" at dang near every objection is less than cromulent.

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

Criminy....now who's letting partisan bias blind one to history?

 

[Kirran]

The whole miners issue was part of Thatchers overall political agenda. It was just one aspect of her diabolical fight, to break the unions, even if it also destroyed an industry

A nephew was a policeman co-opted to that battle, the overtime and expenses involved bought him a brand new car. He is a huge man, and was used, for show, at hot spots, though he never actually raised a finger.
He rather more sympathised with the strikers.
The now ex -husband of a niece was also there. He was a special duty firearms officer. he was extremely right wing and "Enjoyed" himself, or so he said.
Thankfully politically provoked Riots are extremely rare.

It was a sad period in our history.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Well, I'm complicated.
How many draft dodgers who designed military weapon systems do you know?

 

[sayak83]

You really don't know of any?
I've seen many such demonstrations during the Viet Nam war.
I say they worked.
Would burning your car or breaking your windows have been better?

Of course riots happen.
I say they're best avoided.

There was no incidence of demonstrations turning violent during the Vietnam war?

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I'm complicated.
How many draft dodgers who designed military weapon systems do you know?

One, far as I can tell.

 

[Kirran]

Well, I'm complicated.
How many draft dodgers who designed military weapon systems do you know?

No but really, how do you justify the killing of over 200,000 civilians so as to win a war, when you can't accept a couple of people being hit by rioters seeking attention for the oppression of their civil rights?

 

[sayak83]

And plenty of non-violence.
You didn't see that?

Do you think they are not part of the same process. The message is "We seek a peaceful resolution but can be violent if provoked".

 

[Revoltingest]

No but really, how do you justify the killing of over 200,000 civilians so as to win a war, when you can't accept a couple of people being hit by rioters seeking attention for the oppression of their civil rights?

Nuking Japan did indeed cause the death of many innocents.
But not doing so would've prolonged the war, causing many more deaths.
I see the choice as the lesser of 2 evils.

I know that many disagree about my premise of ending the war sooner.
It is nonetheless my premise.

 

[Revoltingest]

There was no incidence of demonstrations turning violent during the Vietnam war?

I don't argue that point.
I simply maintain that peaceful demonstrations are the most effective & ethical.

 

[Kirran]

Nuking Japan did indeed cause the death of many innocents.
But not doing so would've prolonged the war, causing many more deaths.
I see the choice as the lesser of 2 evils.

I know that many disagree about my premise of ending the war sooner.
It is nonetheless my premise.

So if by punching a few bystanders, we can gain more awareness for a civil rights cause and end oppression sooner?

 

[lovesong]

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.

That is literally the worse advise I have ever heard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think they are not part of the same process. The message is "We seek a peaceful resolution but can be violent if provoked".

I prefer a different message.

 

[Kirran]

I prefer a different message.

"We seek a peaceful resolution and if nobody listens to us then too bad."

Although I do question the classification of riots as in some way inherently violent. Property destruction isn't violent. Certainly I am against attacking innocent civilians.

 

[Revoltingest]

So if by punching a few bystanders, we can gain more awareness for a civil rights cause and end oppression sooner?

Do you really believe that would be the consequence?
I don't think so, which is part of why I oppose it.

 

[Kemosloby]

That is literally the worse advise I have ever heard.

Yeah, that wasn't the best.

 

[Revoltingest]

"We seek a peaceful resolution and if nobody listens to us then too bad."

That's a pretty lame message.

Although I do question the classification of riots as in some way inherently violent. Property destruction isn't violent. Certainly I am against attacking innocent civilians.

Then if I get upset about something Trump does, would you be OK with my burning down your house?
It just possibly might change Trump's mind.
I've got nothing to lose by trying.

 

[Kirran]

Do you really believe that would be the consequence?
I don't think so, which is part of why I oppose it.

We didn't know how killing 200,000 people might turn out either.

But I think it's a massive deflection to focus on, for example, the punching of a few bystanders by overpassionate BLM protestors rather on the massive level of institutional and societal racism which has inspired them to protest.

 

[Kirran]

That's a pretty lame message.

I thought so!

Then if I get upset about something Trump does, would you be OK with my burning down your house?
It just possibly might change Trump's mind.
I've got nothing to lose by trying.

It would be a bit odd if you just did it by yourself. If there was damage to my property during a riot over a legitimate civil rights cause in its vicinity, I wouldn't really harbour any animosity towards whoever did it.

Also, getting the establishment to pay attention is only a rather small part of what marches, protests and riots are about. They are more raising awareness of the cause among the general population and about bringing sympathetic people together to become more confident and better networked.

 

[Revoltingest]

We didn't know how killing 200,000 people might turn out either.

I saw good reason to do it, even if nothing in life is certain.
Let's not derail the thread by getting into the details of Japanese military culture.
It's well trampled ground in other threads.

But I think it's a massive deflection to focus on, for example, the punching of a few bystanders by overpassionate BLM protestors rather on the massive level of institutional and societal racism which has inspired them to protest.

It's now "deflection" to oppose violence against innocent bystanders?
Barsh!
Flimshaw!
To endure injustice is not license to perpetrate the same against others.