Only in America...

[hulloutpost]

Also for balance: sounds like an average week in the US, which is riven with gun-crime at the best of times

Of course, the *vast* majority of the demonstrations are peaceful and we'd all prefer that to violence, as I think we've established. But it must achieve change.

Gun crime in America is a completely separate issue to that of people dying as a direct result of violent protests. The huge peaceful protests not the violence may well be what has caused the changes that you listed previously. The disruption and strength of feeling demonstrated by them has proven to be very powerful in the short term the next stage is converting that into long term change in procedures and the mindset as to what is unacceptable behaviour.

 

[NottyImp]

Gun crime in America is a completely separate issue to that of people dying as a direct result of violent protests. The huge peaceful protests not the violence may well be what has caused the changes that you listed previously. The disruption and strength of feeling demonstrated by them has proven to be very powerful in the short term the next stage is converting that into long term change in procedures and the mindset as to what is unacceptable behaviour.

Well, that's all up for debate, isn't? There's nothing like a bit of serious civil unrest to get those in power to sharpen their pencils. I imagine a few peaceful marches would have resulted in the usual platitudes and nothing really happening. As it has for the last 70 years.

And don't be surprised if some of those deaths are just regular gun-crime dressed as protest violence.

 

[hulloutpost]

Well, that's all up for debate, isn't? There's nothing like a bit of serious civil unrest to get those in power to sharpen their pencils. I imagine a few peaceful marches would have resulted in the usual platitudes and nothing really happening. As it has for the last 70 years.

And don't be surprised if some of those deaths are just regular gun-crime dressed as protest violence.

You variously refer to the vast majority of the protests being peaceful (as a counter point to those that are violent) and then go onto suggest a few peaceful marches wouldn't have achieved much. Perhaps the point is that it is the vast amount of peaceful marches, many in number (not few) which have got the attention. Surrounding the White House for days is surely more impactful than shooting Phil Bloggs dead in a liquor store looting.
It's very convenient to make apologist speculation that 'some' of the deaths are just regular gun crime whilst simultaneously postulating that it is those very deaths which are leading to positive change. I'm not sure where you stand as you can't uphold the deaths and violence as the catalyst for change whilst at the same time trying to down play some of them as 'just' regular gun crime. How many deaths as a direct result of the protests do you feel are acceptable - 1, 10, 20, 100?

 

[stokeimp]

I am a believer in peaceful, non violent protest.

But it's a sad reflection of our democracies that at certain stages peaceful means do not achieve the changes societies need to make. We take our right to vote as given - but would we have that right if not for the Chartists and Suffragettes? Would there still be a poll tax? In America, would the Vietnam war have ended when it did? In this country, would it have made a difference to the war in Iraq if protest had turned nasty?

Don't know. But things have gone wrong, and politicians have not taken notice, when people feel such protest is the only way to get change

 

[Sincilbanks]

You variously refer to the vast majority of the protests being peaceful (as a counter point to those that are violent) and then go onto suggest a few peaceful marches wouldn't have achieved much. Perhaps the point is that it is the vast amount of peaceful marches which have been many in number (not few) which have got the attention. Surrounding the White House for days is surely more impactful than shooting Phil Bloggs dead in a liquor store looting.
It's very convenient to make apologist speculation that 'some' of the deaths are just regular gun crime whilst simultaneously postulating that it is those very deaths which are leading to positive change. I'm not sure where you stand as you can't uphold the deaths and violence as the catalyst for change whilst at the same time trying to down play some of them as 'just' regular gun crime. How many deaths as a direct result of the protests do you feel are acceptable - 1, 10, 20, 100?

Anywhere under a thousand I would say would be doing well...

 

[hulloutpost]

Anywhere under a thousand I would say would be doing well...

Is that how many you expect or how many you feel is justifiable for the cause?

 

[Sincilbanks]

Is that how many you expect or how many you feel is justifiable for the cause?

How many would be justifiable for the cause...

 

[Sincilbanks]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i...radict-police-accounts/ar-BB157DAW?li=BBnb7Kz

Taken together, the incidents show how instant verification of police accounts have altered the landscape of accountability.

“We certainly, as a profession, have been diminished by events that have been witnessed on video over the course of the last couple of weeks,” Jim Pasco, executive director of the national Fraternal Order of Police, a labor union, told The Washington Post.

 

[hulloutpost]

How many would be justifiable for the cause...

Zero, and you?

 

[Sincilbanks]

Zero, and you?

You misunderstood, I answered your question..
Is that how many you expect or how many you feel is justifiable for the cause?
It's "How many would be justifiable for the cause"

 

[NottyImp]

You variously refer to the vast majority of the protests being peaceful (as a counter point to those that are violent) and then go onto suggest a few peaceful marches wouldn't have achieved much. Perhaps the point is that it is the vast amount of peaceful marches, many in number (not few) which have got the attention. Surrounding the White House for days is surely more impactful than shooting Phil Bloggs dead in a liquor store looting.
It's very convenient to make apologist speculation that 'some' of the deaths are just regular gun crime whilst simultaneously postulating that it is those very deaths which are leading to positive change. I'm not sure where you stand as you can't uphold the deaths and violence as the catalyst for change whilst at the same time trying to down play some of them as 'just' regular gun crime. How many deaths as a direct result of the protests do you feel are acceptable - 1, 10, 20, 100?

Let's turn that around. How many black people do you think need to die at the hands of racist cops before the State does what it should do and puts a stop to it? 1, 10, 20,100?

There is a massive power-imbalance here. The State and the police are invested with enormous coercive power - politically, socially and, indeed militarily - and with power comes an equally great responsibility not to misuse it. It is being badly misused in the US with regards to black people. The responsibility for all this lies squarely with the government, police and State apparatus that has repeatedly failed its black citizens over decades - even centuries, one could argue.

People don't particularly want to go out and protest and riot in my experience. But when pushed far enough by systemic failure of all aspects of the police and justice system, they do. I support the right of citizens to oppose an oppressive, unyielding apparently un-reformable government when necessary.

You know, it's really easy to solve this problem. The people in power just need to do the right thing and live up to their responsibilities to their citizens. If they won't - and it appears 70 years has proven that they won't - then they need to be made to.

 

[stokeimp]

There are obviously very diverse views on this subject, even among those who think alike on the issues in America. My wife and I agree on the unacceptable way the police acted on Floyd, and our total disdain for Trump (and agree on what the f**k was Teresa May doing inviting him to a royal visit?), but she doesn't accept the destruction of the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol as acceptable - if people feel so strongly they should lobby, petition etc, it takes longer, but is more powerful when the statue is removed - I support peaceful protest, but support what the protesters did. But who, then, is the arbiter of what is/is not acceptable? - the biggest crowd? - surely not. Should Penny Lane in Liverpool, for example, be renamed?

 

[hulloutpost]

Let's turn that around. How many black people do you think need to die at the hands of racist cops before the State does what it should do and puts a stop to it? 1, 10, 20,100?

There is a massive power-imbalance here. The State and the police are invested with enormous coercive power - politically, socially and, indeed militarily - and with power comes an equally great responsibility not to misuse it. It is being badly misused in the US with regards to black people. The responsibility for all this lies squarely with the government, police and State apparatus that has repeatedly failed its black citizens over decades - even centuries, one could argue.

People don't particularly want to go out and protest and riot in my experience. But when pushed far enough by systemic failure of all aspects of the police and justice system, they do. I support the right of citizens to oppose an oppressive, unyielding apparently un-reformable government when necessary.

You know, it's really easy to solve this problem. The people in power just need to do the right thing and live up to their responsibilities to their citizens. If they won't - and it appears 70 years has proven that they won't - then they need to be made to.

No-one is arguing that there isn't a power imbalance, no-one is saying that the endemic and disproportionate violence towards BAME communities is acceptable, doesn't need to change and that it has taken too long; continues to take too long.
My position is and has been consistent throughout. The violence and deaths are wrong, unacceptable and inexcusable on both sides if 'sides' is even the correct way to put it. What I'm struggling to understand is where your flip flop logic comes from. On the one hand you seem to be lauding the legitimacy of the use of violence and what it has quickly achieved yet when confronted with some of the deadly consequences of that same violence you then appear try to casually disassociate (some of) the deaths as being possibly not connected. Perhaps you could help me understand why you believe that the violence and deaths are legitimate and helpful to the solution of the injustice yet you seem to want to distance from these 'helpful' and effective tools when the reality of what is happening is pointed out.

 

[NottyImp]

No-one is arguing that there isn't a power imbalance, no-one is saying that the endemic and disproportionate violence towards BAME communities is acceptable, doesn't need to change and that it has taken too long; continues to take too long.
My position is and has been consistent throughout. The violence and deaths are wrong, unacceptable and inexcusable on both sides if 'sides' is even the correct way to put it. What I'm struggling to understand is where your flip flop logic comes from. On the one hand you seem to be lauding the legitimacy of the use of violence and what it has quickly achieved yet when confronted with some of the deadly consequences of that same violence you then appear try to casually disassociate (some of) the deaths as being possibly not connected. Perhaps you could help me understand why you believe that the violence and deaths are legitimate and helpful to the solution of the injustice yet you seem to want to distance from these 'helpful' and effective tools when the reality of what is happening is pointed out.

I've no idea of any of the contexts of deaths you have mentioned, who they are or how they occurred. You haven't linked any reports or sources.

When you want real change, shit happens. You yourself self said Hitler had to be stopped. Well, that cost 10s of millions of deaths. Was that enough, or too many?

Maybe the deaths you have referred to now will prevent many more in the future by helping to stop racist white cops executing black people.

I'm perfectly sanguine that periods of civil unrest to enact change will result in some bad things happening. It was ever thus, if you read history.

My position is perfectly consistent too: the establishment is responsible for those deaths by failing it's black citizens and leaving them little choice but to instigate civil unrest.

You haven't addressed that point at all.

But I suspect we're at diametrically opposed ends of the authoritarian/liberal, right/left spectrums, so there's very little chance we're going to agree.

 

[hulloutpost]

I've no idea of any of the contexts of deaths you have mentioned, who they are or how they occurred. You haven't linked any reports or sources.

When you want real change, shit happens. You yourself self said Hitler had to be stopped. Well, that cost 10s of millions of deaths. Was that enough, or too many?

Maybe the deaths you have referred to now will prevent many more in the future by helping to stop racist white cops executing black people.

I'm perfectly sanguine that periods of civil unrest to enact change will result in some bad things happening. It was ever thus, if you read history.

My position is perfectly consistent too: the establishment is responsible for those deaths by failing it's black citizens and leaving them little choice but to instigate civil unrest.

You haven't addressed that point at all.

But I suspect we're at diametrically opposed ends of the authoritarian/liberal, right/left spectrums, so there's very little chance we're going to agree.

Well we do appear to be going 'round in ever decreasing circles but at least your final sentence is half right. You may identify as being at one end of a political/ideological spectrum but I certainly don't

 

[NottyImp]

Well we do appear to be going 'round in ever decreasing circles but at least your final sentence is half right. You may identify as being at one end of a political/ideological spectrum but I certainly don't

Well, whatever. You did tell me by PM you understand nothing about politics. I'm not inclined to disagree with you on that point.

 

[hulloutpost]

Well, whatever. You did tell me by PM you understand nothing about politics. I'm not inclined to disagree with you on that point.

 

[hulloutpost]

Well, whatever. You did tell me by PM you understand nothing about politics. I'm not inclined to disagree with you on that point.

Priceless Notty. You PM'd me to tell me I know nothing about politics, then when I wholeheartedly agreed you immediately flip flopped to say in fact I fully understood politics and finally you flip flop again to agree with my assertation that in fact I don't know anything about politics. Seems I can't even agree with you without you disagreeing with me Anyway being mindful this has gotten a bit juvenile and off topic feel free to have the final word should you choose to. Knock yourself out.

 

[Sincilbanks]

I am a believer in peaceful, non violent protest.

But it's a sad reflection of our democracies that at certain stages peaceful means do not achieve the changes societies need to make. We take our right to vote as given - but would we have that right if not for the Chartists and Suffragettes? Would there still be a poll tax? In America, would the Vietnam war have ended when it did? In this country, would it have made a difference to the war in Iraq if protest had turned nasty?

Don't know. But things have gone wrong, and politicians have not taken notice, when people feel such protest is the only way to get change

https://counteringcolston.wordpress.com/colston-hall/

https://counteringcolston.wordpress.com/colston-statue/

For decades, Bristolians have campaigned to change the name of Colston Hall. Edward Colston’s crimes are well known, and many people believe that it is wrong that he should be honoured by having a prestigious cultural venue named after him. In our own campaign for a name change, we ran a petition, organized a series of awareness-raising events, led informative public walks, promoted the Colston Hall consultation, lobbied the board, worked with the media. We argued that:
1) The name of the hall should be changed so that it no longer honours Edward Colston.
2) The refurbished and renamed hall should permanently incorporate a historical display acknowledging Edward Colston’s crimes against humanity, and more generally, the history and legacies of slavery and abolition.
3) There should be an ongoing programme of events established at the hall to address this subject.

 

[NottyImp]

Priceless Notty. You PM'd me to tell me I know nothing about politics, then when I wholeheartedly agreed you immediately flip flopped to say in fact I fully understood politics and finally you flip flop again to agree with my assertation that in fact I don't know anything about politics. Seems I can't even agree with you without you disagreeing with me Anyway being mindful this has gotten a bit juvenile and off topic feel free to have the final word should you choose to. Knock yourself out.

You're right, I should have believed you when you said you understood nothing about politics. I'm endlessly optimistic that people aren't as ignorant as they appear to be.

But wait! Your "last word" gambit suggests that, actually, you *do* understand rhetoric which is surely one of the foundations of politics.

Anyway, whenever you feel you can respond to my last substantive post - before it got a bit silly - feel free to do so.

For the record, I've no problem claiming the last word when my opponent has nothing useful to say.