"What is rioting and looting accomplishing? Anarchy changes nothing!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
PBalfredo said:
Straw man nothing. When you bring up the number of riots that worked, you open the door for the counter-point of the number of riots that didn't work.
Click to expand...

It's a moot point. Lots of non violent protests also did not work either. If there was a preferred method of protest that always worked, we wouldn't need to have this discussion. That's why Ami is calling it out. It has zero debating point.
 
PBalfredo said:
Straw man nothing. When you bring up the number of riots that worked, you open the door for the counter-point of the number of riots that didn't work.
Click to expand...

Another straw man. I have had much fruitful discussion with posters in this topic bringing up violent protests that did not work.

The straw man was that nobody was arguing that all violent protests work. The argument is that it is indisputable that some work, and that the message of those protests are heard loud and clear. Therefore, people saying blankly that "violent protests do not work" or that they always obfuscate the messages involved is factually incorrect. They work sometimes, and they don't work other times. Sometimes nonviolent protests work, sometimes they don't.

Please, I encourage you to re-read this comment as many times as necessary for you to grasp what is actually being said.
 
Can we also stop the MLK doctrine. Many civil rights era activists didn't always agree with MLK's execution of his protests along with many other activists disagreeing with only a nonviolent approach. There are also ENDLESS examples of violent rebellion, activism, and war the show violence is effective at bringing about change. You can also have violent and nonviolent activism, Nelson Mandella is a prime example of someone who organized violent activism and only conceded to nonviolent activism after being locked up a few decades and after apartheid was on its way out. MLK was a good man, but this rhetoric of nonviolent resistance gets pretty old.
 
Is there any science to back up OP's claim? Because I have this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w
(I know it's TEDx but it doesn't seem to be wrong)

Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict
This study aims to fill this gap by systematically exploring the strategic effectiveness of violent and nonviolent campaigns in conflicts between nonstate and state actors using aggregate data on major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006. To better understand the causal mechanisms driving these outcomes, we also compare our statistical findings with historical cases that have featured periods of both violent and nonviolent resistance.
...
The central contention of this study is that nonviolent resistance methods are likely to be more successful than violent methods in achieving strategic objectives. We have compared the outcomes of 323 nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006, and we have compared these large-n findings with comparative case studies of nonviolent campaigns in Southeast Asia.
Click to expand...

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7
 
While I agree that change must happen, I see instances where rioting and looting have destroyed cities. I heard on the radio today, the average house value in Ferguson prior to Brown's death was in the $60K's. Today it is dipping into the 20K's.
 
Timeless said:
Is there any science to back up OP's claim? Because I have this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w
(I know it's TEDx but it doesn't seem to be wrong)

Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict


http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7
Click to expand...

.

Timeless said:
Our Findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.
Click to expand...

If you understand what I'm saying in the OP, you understand this study supports my point. My argument has never been about which is more effective. It has not been about endorsing one over the other, or that violent riots are morally right or whatever. It's that history has shown us that we cannot make the claim that violent protests always don't work, or that they always obfuscate the message of those involved.

In this study, 26% of the time they worked. That's a massive percentage of the time. So, there we go - sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't.

Sometimes nonviolent protests work, sometimes they don't. Sometimes people try nonviolence for ages and it doesn't work and they turn to violence; sometimes people try violence and it doesn't work and they turn to nonviolence.
 
BigBeauford said:
While I agree that change must happen, I see instances where rioting and looting have destroyed cities. I heard on the radio today, the average house value in Ferguson prior to Brown's death was in the $60K's. Today it is dipping into the 20K's.
Click to expand...

Think of all the poor millenials, swamped in Student Loan Debt, who can now afford a home now. Don't you support the American dream Beauford?
 
BigBeauford said:
While I agree that change must happen, I see instances where rioting and looting have destroyed cities. I heard on the radio today, the average house value in Ferguson prior to Brown's death was in the $60K's. Today it is dipping into the 20K's.
Click to expand...

It's actually very easy to google facts about this.
 
Amir0x said:
I agree. I've addressed this in this thread a few times. My argument is not that it always works. It's not that it works X% of the time or that it is preferable to Y action. It's basically:

1. This is the natural result of years of injustice not being solved by those in power. We must fix those injustices if this is to stop.
2. That violent riots, which often include looting, frequently do work, and so its utility has to be understood when analyzing the horror of these events.
3. News media/individuals which try to argue that violent protests solely serve to obfuscate the message of those oppressed peoples are simply spouting shallow garbage that intentionally ignores the reality of history.
Click to expand...

Those journalists and individuals that spout shallow garbage are part of the backlash that often makes violent riots an ineffective way of fixing the very injustices that spark these riots.

I conjecture that violence is not rendered completely ineffective by backlash only when a very large fraction of the population already sympathizes with the movement, but if the movement has such a large following, it could probably accomplish its goals without resorting to violence...

Given this, I don't think I could defend or advocate the use of violent protests to accomplish social goals, unless presented with evidence that I'm wrong. That said, I also understand that anger and violence are at times inevitable, and I would personally prefer that the public would focus instead on fixing injustices instead of scorning the angry protesters. However, I also understand that just as violence is inevitable, so is backlash to that violence...
 
Amir0x said:
The point is not that nonviolence doesn't work sometimes too. It's that the harsh reality is that there are times when both ways work. There are times when nonviolence has been tried for ages and nothing is accomplished and then violence follows and it changes things. And there are times when violence is the name of the game but it is nonviolence that eventually leads to the real change.

In any complex analysis of these events, one has to accept the harsh reality of what history has shown us. That is not the same as endorsing one action over another.
.
Click to expand...

Coriolanus said:
Alas, the United States managed to kill it's Mandela. Both of them.
Click to expand...

Good points. It's something to think about as I hadn't thought about it that way!
 
Great OP.

Riots have worked in the past.

I still don't even slightly support violent riots. Not even when it's possible to have change come from them. That being said, I'm not an angry guy, so I can't relate to how it must feel to have that kind of rage built up.

I just hope that no one else gets hurt.
 
Amir0x said:
.

Sometimes nonviolent protests work, sometimes they don't. Sometimes people try nonviolence for ages and it doesn't work and they turn to violence; sometimes people try violence and it doesn't work and they turn to nonviolence.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of the latter one?

Also, on a philosophical level what's the difference between destructive riots and terrorism? Where's the line on that?
 
MBison said:
Peaceful protest doesn't work in America? I seem to recall a lot of peaceful protesting and gatherings regarding same sex marriage and now it's legal in almost every state.

Or did I miss some LGBTQ looting?
Click to expand...
you conveniently skipped the Stonewall Riots . I am popping in UltraSF4 tonight and will get at you with DeeJay or Balrog.
 
Violent protests have a low chance of working but the set back from them is far worse if they don't succeed.

You then have to be OK with any damage that does occur with the riot. You have to be OK with knowing property was destroyed or people were killed even if the riot succeeds or fails.
 
Amir0x said:
Another straw man. I have had much fruitful discussion with posters in this topic bringing up violent protests that did not work.

The straw man was that nobody was arguing that all violent protests work. The argument is that it is indisputable that some work, and that the message of those protests are heard loud and clear. Therefore, people saying blankly that "violent protests do not work" or that they always obfuscate the messages involved is factually incorrect. They work sometimes, and they don't work other times. Sometimes nonviolent protests work, sometimes they don't.

(this line removed because get this condescending shit out of my face)
Click to expand...

You want to balk at the absolutism of saying violence never works? Fine. Violence maybe might work some of the time. But when you consider that facts brought up here:

Timeless said:
Is there any science to back up OP's claim? Because I have this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w
(I know it's TEDx but it doesn't seem to be wrong)

Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict


http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7
Click to expand...

and see that non-violence is more successful and doesn't betray your morals, I say that violent protests do not work as a solution.

Amir0x said:
In this study, 26% of the time they worked. That's a massive percentage of the time. So, there we go - sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't.
Click to expand...

26% success rate on a binary choice.

"Massive"
 
Subpar Spatula said:
Violent protests have a low chance of working but the set back from them is far worse if they don't succeed.

You then have to be OK with any damage that does occur with the riot. You have to be OK with knowing property was destroyed or people were killed even if the riot succeeds or fails.
Click to expand...

I don't get posts like these? It's like people just ignore the idea of why rioting occurs and just jump straight to thinking anyone who can see it for what it is actually advocates for it. The people that die in riots include people whom actually were rioting as well. Rioting is not more effective than peaceful protesting but it doesn't flare out of nothing, it occurs exactly because people feel their voice and their desires are not being addressed. The demonization of rioting is just ridiculous to me, not because I like the method but because 9/10 it's just a shallow cover for not addressing the actual issue at hand. Yeah some shit got burned down, some property was destroyed but let's not address what actually pushed people to that point because unless it's sports, people don't get into the streets and throw bricks for no reason.
 
Gotdatmoney said:
I don't get posts like these? It's like people just ignore the idea of why rioting occurs and just jump straight to thinking anyone who can see it for what it is actually advocates for it. The people that die in riots include people whom actually were rioting as well. Rioting is not more effective than peaceful protesting but it doesn't flare out of nothing, it occurs exactly because people feel their voice and their desires are not being addressed. The demonization of rioting is just ridiculous to me, not because I like the method but because 9/10 it's just a shallow cover for not addressing the actual issue at hand. Yeah some shit got burned down, some property was destroyed but let's not address what actually pushed people to that point because unless it's sports, people don't get into the streets and throw bricks for no reason.
Click to expand...

I am not demonizing. I agree violent protests work. I understand why violence breaks out. I am saying that if you want a violent protest to work you must be OK with the damages that occur.
 
Subpar Spatula said:
I am not demonizing. I agree violent protests work. I understand why violence breaks out. I am saying that if you want a violent protest to work you must be OK with the damages that occur.
Click to expand...

No one has ever claimed to want violent protest to work. That's not an argument that is being made in this thread nor being entertained by any sane person. So what are you really saying? I'm not trying to pick on you specifically. It's more, your statement comes off as if people were actually rooting for it. And at the point of impact, if it's already happening, I don't really see why you wouldn't want something positive to occur out of it. At this point in the Baltimore riots are people suppose to hope something negative comes out of it?
 
Gotdatmoney said:
No one has ever claimed to want violent protest to work. That's not an argument that is being made in this thread nor being entertained by any sane person. So what are you really saying? I'm not trying to pick on you specifically. It's more, your statement comes off as if people were actually rooting for it. And at the point of impact, if it's already happening, I don't really see why you wouldn't want something positive to occur out of it. At this point in the Baltimore riots are people suppose to hope something negative comes out of it?
Click to expand...

My point comes from the idea that if, let's say, some resolution comes from the Baltimore riot and you're accepting of that resolution then you have to be OK with any damages that occur.
 
Zophar said:
Folks claiming violent protest changes nothing conveniently ignoring every war of independence to ever occur.
Click to expand...

Shhhh! Your not allowed to let people know you know violence solves problems. You have to repeat the rhetoric that peace brings about real change.
 
Subpar Spatula said:
My point comes from the idea that if, let's say, some resolution comes from the Baltimore riot then you have to be OK with any damages that occur.
Click to expand...

No you don't. That's just a false equivalency. You can appreciate positive change for what it is without being happy about what it took to get there. And many times, what it took to get there sheds far more light on just how dire the situation was for the oppressed and just how unheard their plights were. What you are arguing imo is just invalid. You can't make an argument for condeming those who don't use peaceful protest 100% of the time without shedding equal condemnation to the oppressors who are not being peaseful ad or just with the people who are protesting. It does nothing but place the blame on the people trying to be heard while absolving the other parties of any wrong doing.
 
Amir0x, why aren't you writing articles for some news website? The research and organization you put into OTs and other posts like this is pretty much exactly what goes into articles people make a living writing.
 
Funny to see all these people, all safe in their homes, having the priveliege of not getting shot by police every couple weeks or so telling other people not to get angry about it.

Motherfucker even if you do support the people getting angry you can't expect him to do it in a controlled manner. You know what the fuck pure rage is? Pure rage coming from a life long of being treated like shit by authorities. Where your life is worth absolutely nothing. Fuck me you have no idea about it and now you want people to be controlled and shit.

Light shit up Baltimore, I hope this becomes one hell of an uprising.
 
That quality OP.

I'm a pacifist myself, but it can't be denied violence has driven progress throughout history. It's high stakes though--the backfires can be nasty.

Honestly though, people get shit on enough, they are going to get fed up & do something. I mean, if nobody's shitting on you that's fantastic, but try to empathize with those that haven't got it so good instead of complaining about folks not taking the high road.
 
block tower said:
Show me an example of war that was won through peace and not violence. Protests can be won by either peace or violence, but to condemn violence as ineffective is ridiculous
Click to expand...

Well, I mean. The Cold War. I think everyone won because of peace there.


Also, I don't condemn violent protesting as ineffective. I condemn it as going against your morals when there are other proven methods of getting change..
 
The Stonewall Riots was arguably the catalyst needed to get society to pay attention to LGBT rights.

While it should avoided most of the time, historically speaking, violence is really the only way for many marginalized groups to get noticed. Especially if the systems put in place against them is successfully suppressing them. Sometimes, they really have no choice.
 
Gotdatmoney said:
No you don't. That's just a false equivalency. You can appreciate positive change for what it is without being happy about what it took to get there. And many times, what it took to get there sheds far more light on just how dire the situation was for the oppressed and just how unheard their plights were. What you are arguing imo is just invalid. You can't make an argument for condeming those who don't use peaceful protest 100% of the time without shedding equal condemnation to the oppressors who are not being peaseful ad or just with the people who are protesting. It does nothing but place the blame on the people trying to be heard while absolving the other parties of any wrong doing.
Click to expand...

The ends justifying the means is a personal issue every one faces. We all tailor it to our personal goals. In the end, though, you do have to come to terms with how things occurred. You can be happy about the positive change and upset about the process, but it's not about emotions, it's about accepting what occurred. You have to accept any damages as being part of the process. That if someone is killed then it was worth it in the end.

While this doesn't mean people are championing riots, it just means that if you're OK with the outcome then any damages that do occur you have to accept as being part of the process and worth it for this necessary change. People have a hard time with this because it can range from random stranger to sibling. Will the end justify the means?
 
NIGHT- said:
I'm all for rioting. But looting is a cowardly move that only hurts your own community. Seems like a lot of people just jump in on these protest for personal gains with looting. Pathetic
Click to expand...
Imagine not having the habit of checking an enthusiast video game forum or the general means to. Then imagine being told you're not working hard enough so you deserve your shit life.
 
Ray Wonder said:
Well, I mean. The Cold War. I think everyone won because of peace there.


Also, I don't condemn violent protesting as ineffective. I condemn it as going against your morals when there are other proven methods of getting change..
Click to expand...

Well morals are subjective So what goes against your morals might not go against someone else's morals. and the Cold War isn't really a war so much as a flexing contest. I don't recall the u.s. or soviets gaining anything of major significance over the other as an outcome.
 
The disconnect on riots comes from mainly two places:

1) People who aren't being oppressed don't care either way. They have nothing to gain from any change brought about by rioting, but they do have something to lose.

2) These same people are unwilling to separate people rioting for a cause from opportunistic vandals/looters, and will use their actions to vilify and belittle ANY actions trying to bring about change, including peaceful protests. It is only after the fact that the peaceful protests are first grudgingly acknowledged and finally used as a bludgeon by these people.
 
block tower said:
Well morals are subjective So what goes against your morals might not go against someone else's morals. and the Cold War isn't really a war so much as a flexing contest. I don't recall the u.s. or soviets gaining anything of major significance over the other as an outcome.
Click to expand...

The petrodollar.

.... that's all I got.
 
I get fairly tired of the "violence solves nothing" argument. Similar to MLK, they often cite Gandhi as an example, but what they fail to realise is that up to 500,000 people were killed during Partition, and 14 million people were displaced. So while Gandhi may not have supported violence specifically (and barring the allegations that he not only beat his wife, but sexually abused his niece) mass violence was a direct consequence of his actions.
 
block tower said:
Well morals are subjective So what goes against your morals might not go against someone else's morals. and the Cold War isn't really a war so much as a flexing contest. I don't recall the u.s. or soviets gaining anything of major significance over the other as an outcome.
Click to expand...

If your morals don't include not destroying neighborhoods, then you need to do some soul searching before you try and change someone else.

Also, War, by definition, includes violence. It was a loaded question to begin with. I just entertained it.
 
Isn't this a matter of philosophy and personal belief? Violence vs nonviolence are not true/false answer questions. It is a matter of what you personally believe in. Even during the times of MLK there was a lot of debate over which course of action to take and not everyone agreed with his methods. Some wanted much more direct and aggressive approaches.
 
Subpar Spatula said:
The ends justifying the means is a personal issue every one faces. We all tailor it to our personal goals. In the end, though, you do have to come to terms with how things occurred. You can be happy about the positive change and upset about the process, but it's not about emotions, it's about accepting what occurred. You have to accept any damages as being part of the process. That if someone is killed then it was worth it in the end.

While this doesn't mean people are championing riots, it just means that if you're OK with the outcome then any damages that do occur you have to accept as being part of the process and worth it for this necessary change. People have a hard time with this because it can range from random stranger to sibling. Will the end justify the means?
Click to expand...

The ends justifying the means is an extreme way to view situations, It's not about tailoring it to personal needs, it's about recognizing a positive out of a negative situations and frankly I purely disagree with your logic on this issue. You have to accept what happens in a situation because you cannot change it. Not because you support the negativity but because regardless of your philosophy the reality is it happened and the reality is it happened for a reason.

Frankly, it's naive to ever sit and say violence can never be justified or ever be necessary. Sometimes it is necessary to achieve change, sometimes it is a catalyst for change and sometimes it's an unfortunate outcome of that change but violence itself is not always unjustified. Do I agree with the Baltimore riots? Naw, I don't think they really are at the point where they need to riot (though I don't live in that community so I don't know what they experience on a daily basis). Am I particularly surprised that it has come to this? With all the unrest in America over this issue? No not really. The people exercising violence against the people constantly harassing and being violent towards them is not surprising, again #historyoftheworld If you look at change and situations at a personal level, you're never going to find positivity in anything.
 
I think this is one of the first threads where majority of the posts support getting angry, and doing something about it.

other than looting. im with it. peaceful protests don't work for shit in america.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What is the best animes for adults
2 3
102
5K
rubik's dude replied
  • Poll
What would today’s computers and phones be like without Apple?
2
93
4K
BlackTron replied
what is the best fanservice free animes for adults
37
1K
-Minsc- replied
"What the hell is happening to fantasy?"
23
2K
Hookshot replied
What is the point of NeoGAF discord?
18
1K
eddie4 replied
Top Bottom