>I think there's a meme that riots yield political concessions.
I think that unfortunately it may be correct.
>I think that in an environment where peaceful protest is perceived as without value and riots are perceived as efficacious, people will tend to make the rational choice.
I think that's a pretty obvious and logical path of escalation, but I still do not believe that most people would begin a protest with the intent that it become violent, nor that most people would rationalize the use of violence in that manner. If they are so rational, they surely would not choose the police or potentially the nat'l guard as opponents in a brawl.
>Perhaps I should say that I view riots as a form of injustice unto themselves.
Agreed.
>I am attempting to take action to stop injustice by demonstrating the scope and negative impact of injustice.
And demonstrating a marked lack of sympathy for others in doing so. You are not particularly concerned with injustice or violence as long as you remain personally unaffected.
Personally, I believe the meme to be a case of people choosing their beliefs for the purpose of emotional satisfaction rather than truth value.
> And demonstrating a marked lack of sympathy for others in doing so. You are not particularly concerned with injustice or violence as long as you remain personally unaffected.
Would you be more willing to listen if I had written a teeth-gnashing litany about how much I sympathize with the grievance(s) in question first? I suspect most would not. The prevailing thought is that in such a scenario as this, I should subordinate my grievances to those of others. You can see this on display when others tell me "get over yourself". In other words, I am to disregard one injustice in the supposed interests of addressing another injustice.
I am concerned with injustice and violence. I am also concerned with not perpetuating them in an effort to address them. I do not consider making the problem worse to be an acceptable manner of attempting to solve the problem.
I also wrote this:
> And the riots have put me in an awkward position. I can say I don't support the rioters while still supporting and pushing for what the rioters want. However, if I do this, any successes can and will be treated as successes by the rioters. The predictable result will be more riots, because people will conclude that riots get them what they want. Alternately, I can refuse to advocate for policies called for by rioters, because under no circumstances do I want to encourage riots.
> That's the bind I'm in. I'm erring on the side of personal safety, because I'm not real interested in having my face smashed in with a crowbar for the cause of today's riot.
Perhaps that's not considered sympathy. I should think it makes clear where my personal sympathies lie. Perhaps a more strident declaration of loyalty to The Cause is required?
That said, I'm also bothered by the idea that I have to express sympathy before being permitted to be displeased with an injustice. Can I criticize attempting to assassinate the POTUS without commenting on the cause of independence for Puerto Rice?
>For starters, the meme is demonstrably incorrect.
I'll bet you that black people in general in Ferguson, Mo. would tell you that they are better off now then they were before the protests. Since there was also rioting and looting and vandalism and violence, there are also probably people who believe that the rioting and looting and vandalism and violence are what's responsible for their improved status. It may well be that the rest of the country became more conservative after watching it; that would be a shame, and I'm still not convinced about that, either.
>I am to disregard one injustice in the supposed interests of addressing another injustice.
What injustice? You saw where some vandals in Oakland vandalized some stuff? We as a society mistreat a group of people until they take to the streets in protest, and when a few of them get too rowdy, people such as yourself get uptight about that (the protest, not the decades of injustice). Also, note the ease with which agents provocateurs can derail any social justice protest/movement merely because people such as yourself can't/won't distinguish between the two.
>Perhaps a more strident declaration of loyalty to The Cause is required?
That kind of wit might be why people tell you to get over yourself.
>That said, I'm also bothered by the idea that I have to express sympathy before being permitted to be displeased with an injustice. Can I criticize attempting to assassinate the POTUS without commenting on the cause of independence for Puerto Rice?
Let me cut to the quick: I believe it it possible to be dissatisfied with both racism and riots. I also believe it is possible to be dissatisfied with racism without being morally obliged to support or encourage riots. Perhaps you differ.
I think that unfortunately it may be correct.
>I think that in an environment where peaceful protest is perceived as without value and riots are perceived as efficacious, people will tend to make the rational choice.
I think that's a pretty obvious and logical path of escalation, but I still do not believe that most people would begin a protest with the intent that it become violent, nor that most people would rationalize the use of violence in that manner. If they are so rational, they surely would not choose the police or potentially the nat'l guard as opponents in a brawl.
>Perhaps I should say that I view riots as a form of injustice unto themselves.
Agreed.
>I am attempting to take action to stop injustice by demonstrating the scope and negative impact of injustice.
And demonstrating a marked lack of sympathy for others in doing so. You are not particularly concerned with injustice or violence as long as you remain personally unaffected.