Do you agree with this Joe Biden statement?

[Gatti-man]

Every single example you listed has a defined enemy. Destroying property often times leads to the original victims living even harder lives because it depresses the area economically. These protestors typically burn down their own areas. There is a lot of research online about it but directionless violence doesn't work. In fact it's usually self harming.

not saying I don't understand just the end result isn't positive.

Sure. But voter apathy is a real thing. And I know it's happening in the circles I run in.



Shut the fuck up, black people so that we can...reform the police, give them more money, and train them to shoot in the leg instead of killing us.

Sounds good.

Click to shrink...

Voter apathy is exactly what the right wants. The more infighting and divisive the left gets the better for them. Any apathy you or others feel is a feather in the cap of people trying to oppress you.

edit: to summarize my thoughts the time to criticize Biden was in the primary not during an election. That's why you'll see people get. Defensive. You can criticize after or before not during. Just my opinion.

 

[bruhaha]

Shut the fuck up, black people so that we can...reform the police, give them more money, and train them to shoot in the leg instead of killing us.

Sounds good.

Click to shrink...

Losing the majority in 2022 so that Republicans do even worse than that.

Sounds good.

 

[Wrapped in Black]

OP If you know who Biden is, then you shouldn't be surprised by this statement. You're not wrong, but what he said is to be expected.

 

[etrain911]

Losing the majority in 2022 so that Republicans do even worse than that.

Sounds good.

Click to shrink...

Lmao solid call. Let's depress the activist base and create voter apathy just so we can get people who don't personally like Trump but love GOP policy to be our friend. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[Netherscourge]

I expect to be piled on for saying this, but I'll say it.

If Joe comes out super-hard against cops and even forgives the looting/rioting, he may lose enough votes to beat Trump. That's the thinking anyway.

If you don't think that's part of his measured response, you're not being honest with yourselves.

At THAT point, you have to ask yourself - who gives you the tiniest bit of hope that they MIGHT make a positive change with this in the next 4 years? Joe Biden or Donald Trump?

I know it's the not brave, steadfast, stoic answer people want. But that's literally the reality of the situation.

 

[bruhaha]

He's got to appeal to racist white people and not the Democrat's strongest voting bloc?

ight, bet.

Click to shrink...

What bloc are you talking about? White Democratic women outnumber all Democratic African Americans.

 

[Deleted member 21709]

Fuck that niggas are tired of being fed bullshit statements like that. Biden shouldn't have to constantly shit on black people just to make dumbass whites happy, and if we have a issue with that we need to bring it up right now.

We been waiting to have that conversation for years and it still hasn't happened.

Click to shrink...

I hear you.

Serious question to you and anyone else who thinks this way. When is the appropriate time for yall? How much longer do you want oppressed and marginalized people to wait for their rights and for justice?

Click to shrink...

I think we're well beyond the time, time ran out decades ago.

 

[DigitalOp]

Republicans hold their tongue with Trump and got policy accomplished antithetical to your ideas. Winning and holding a majority is everything in a two party system.

Click to shrink...

However, in 2021, if the Dems take power, it's time for them show proof

It's been a non stop "wait till after this" kick the can approach

It's over, the society is in shambles

It's why I said the Trifecta will reveal the soul of the country. The Dems will finally reform the country or leave us high and dry like always

 

[mbpm]

That's bait.

 

[bruhaha]

Lmao solid call. Let's depress the activist base and create voter apathy just so we can get people who don't personally like Trump but love GOP policy to be our friend. Let me know how that works out for you.

Click to shrink...

You're acting like Democrats don't need to rely on moderates to vote. Condoning violence depresses the moderate base. It's a numbers game and your vote isn't magically worth more than a moderate vote.

 

[etrain911]

You're acting like Democrats don't need to rely on moderates to vote. Condoning violence depresses the moderate base. It's a numbers game and your vote isn't magically worth more than a moderate vote.

Click to shrink...

You know how moderates get policy sway? They don't show up every time. You literally have to appeal to them. Why is that negotiation power never allotted to the left? Because it's clear we aren't allies. My vote is equal to a moderate's vote and you and other Democrats would do well to remember that.

 

[iwam]

Hey, I've seen these talking points somewhere...

Click to shrink...

Hitler ate sugar.

 

[Surfinn]

That's bait.

Click to shrink...

What's bait?

 

[bruhaha]

However, in 2021, if the Dems take power, it's time for them show proof

It's been a non stop "wait till after this" kick the can approach

It's over, the society is in shambles

It's why I said the Trifecta will reveal the soul of the country. The Dems will finally reform the country or leave us high and dry like always

Click to shrink...

Yup, I'm all for pressing moderates once the party is safely in the majority. The best way to safely keep the majority is to primary blue districts with progressive candidates or threaten to do so to change incumbents policies. Causing the party to lose the majority is counterproductive.

 

[bruhaha]

You know how moderates get policy sway? They don't show up every time. You literally have to appeal to them. Why is that negotiation power never allotted to the left? Because it's clear we aren't allies. My vote is equal to a moderate's vote and you and other Democrats would do well to remember that.

Click to shrink...

Moderates show up much more reliably to the poll than activists. Youth vote dropped significantly during midterms after Obama's elections.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I expect to be piled on for saying this, but I'll say it.

If Joe comes out super-hard against cops and even forgives the looting/rioting, he may lose enough votes to beat Trump. That's the thinking anyway.

If you don't think that's part of his measured response, you're not being honest with yourselves.

At THAT point, you have to ask yourself - who gives you the tiniest bit of hope that they MIGHT make a positive change with this in the next 4 years? Joe Biden or Donald Trump?

I know it's the not brave, steadfast, stoic answer people want. But that's literally the reality of the situation.

Click to shrink...

If you think Biden is saying this due to the election and not because this is what he believes you're naive.

 

[Wilf Netherton]

What bloc are you talking about? White Democratic women outnumber all Democratic African Americans.

Click to shrink...

Y'know, I seem to remember people around here saying black women were the backbone of the Democratic Party.

 

[trashbandit]

I don't agree with him, but honestly anything other than a middle of the road statement would've been tantamount to grabbing the third rail at this point.

 

[riverfr0zen]

"At the same time, No amount of anger at the very real injustices in our society excuses violence"


BZZZT. Wrong. Incorrect. Not factual.

...

Click to shrink...

The quote is accurate. You have deviated from the meaning of the word "excuse" as your formed the arguments in your OP, such that you started taking the meaning "anger does not excuse violence" to mean "violence cannot have a positive eventual outcome".

I get that the conversation of the thread has moved on to it being more about "whether Biden is right to make such a statement that denounces anyone participating in violence", but in terms of the statement itself, it is not unsound.

 

[bruhaha]

Y'know, I seem to remember people around here saying black women were the backbone of the Democratic Party.

Click to shrink...

They are percentage-wise but not numbers-wise. Going from 55% of white women to 40% loses more votes that going from 95% of Black women to 60%.

 

[skillzilla81]

What bloc are you talking about? White Democratic women outnumber all Democratic African Americans.

Click to shrink...

It's black women.

lol @ relying on white women. Ya'll out here happy Trump is losing suburban support because he's just that sexist. Meanwhile in black houses...

Losing the majority in 2022 so that Republicans do even worse than that.

Sounds good.

Click to shrink...

Yawn.

How many black men have to get shot, how many black women have to die in hospitals, how many systemic issues we got to ignore because white people don't give a shit about us?

 

[Mekanos]

They are percentage-wise but not numbers-wise. Going from 55% of white women to 40% loses more votes that going from 95% of Black women to 60%.

Click to shrink...

Why don't we just only have white women vote then if it's so important?

 

[Shy]

That's bait.

Click to shrink...

What is bait?

 

[Kyra]

In this fucked up world the answer is both the OP and Biden are correct.

 

[bruhaha]

Why don't we just only have white women vote then if it's so important?

Click to shrink...

I think every vote counts equally. I was responding to a post about who the most important voting bloc is.

 

[DigitalOp]

Yup, I'm all for pressing moderates once the party is safely in the majority. The best way to safely keep the majority is to primary blue districts with progressive candidates or threaten to do so to change incumbents policies. Causing the party to lose the majority is counterproductive.

Click to shrink...

You do realize there is nothing to press? We gave them our votes, they will walk into power.

They literally have no accountability to us. They can literally do what they want.

That's why the situation is so dire. They can do whatever they want

 

[Addleburg]

I mean, I don't agree with the statement. Unfortunately, there are people in power that won't listen to the cries of people until it results in their pocketbooks being hurt. That being said, I don't think any president or presidential candidate could or would say this.

 

[Deleted member 23212]

In this fucked up world the answer is both the OP and Biden are correct.

Click to shrink...

They can't both be correct.

 

[Codeblue]

Y'know, I seem to remember people around here saying black women were the backbone of the Democratic Party.

Click to shrink...

Dems gamble that they would rather be ignored than lose their civil rights. It's exploitation with cheap lip service attached.

 

[Firmus_Anguis]

Serious question to you and anyone else who thinks this way. When is the appropriate time for yall? How much longer do you want oppressed and marginalized people to wait for their rights and for justice?

Click to shrink...

The thought-process behind it seems to be:

"Wait until he has the power to do something, because a Trump reelection certainly won't bring about change"
- Which is a sentiment I certainly understand, it is a crucial election... But I'm also willing to bet that this argument isn't coming from most black users here on Era.

It's easy to say wait for change, when you yourself don't have to wait on anything.

Denouncing the actions of the police, acknowledging the problem and putting the emphasis on the much needed police reform, whilst still encouraging people to try to stay calm (no matter how justifiable the violence and the anger is), should've been possible.

The statement is clumsy, because it almost makes looting out to be a bigger issue than innocent men and women getting killed by the very people who're supposed to protect them.

"Looting is a crime!", that's the part that gets me the most.

 

[Kyra]

They can't both be correct.

Click to shrink...

If Biden did not condemn violence it would have been a gaffe. He was correct in issuing this statement. That can exist simultaneous to the issues outlines in the OP. We don't live in a world where what is just is the only thing that matters and that is what makes it fucked up but it doesn't make it untrue.

 

[Horp]

You are right OP. In many, if not most, cases, change comes about via violence. People can go around praying and wishing that things wouldn't be this way, but they are and have always been.
But as others have said, the president is not the person to advocade for violence - or even find it acceptable. In fact, for matters that a president agrees with, violence is NOT the only way.

 

[bruhaha]

It's black women.

lol @ relying on white women. Ya'll out here happy Trump is losing suburban support because he's just that sexist. Meanwhile in black houses...

Click to shrink...

What's your plan for winning a majority of votes in America's two party system without white women? I'd love to hear it.

Yawn.

How many black men have to get shot, how many black women have to die in hospitals, how many systemic issues we got to ignore because white people don't give a shit about us?

Click to shrink...

Probably more under Republicans. You can be angry and frustrated (I am too) but if there's no plan to keep winning elections and be able to keep the majority that frustration doesn't get us anywhere. I'll repeat what I said above, the effective way to keep the majority and move the party left is to primary blue districts and move the center of congress left.

 

[bruhaha]

You do realize there is nothing to press? We gave them our votes, they will walk into power.

They literally have no accountability to us. They can literally do what they want.

That's why the situation is so dire. They can do whatever they want

Click to shrink...

You realize the majority of the country votes this way, right? Republicans and moderate Democrat voters don't get most of the policies they want from the candidates they elect. You act as if you're the only ones not getting exactly what you want exactly when you want it. Them being more regular and reliable voters makes them more valuable to the respective parties than activists who don't vote in every election. Stuff like the judiciary took a long time for Republicans to transform while their voters reliably voted Republican under Obama to keep him from implementing policy even though they didn't get their own policies passed.

The party can't ignore you if a larger and larger bloc in congress represent your ideas. AOC, Jayapal, Markey, etc won seats in safe blue districts. Showing up and electing more like them moves the party left while not risking taking steps backwards by losing the majority altogether.

 

[Deleted member 23212]

If Biden did not condemn violence it would have been a gaffe. He was correct in issuing this statement. That can exist simultaneous to the issues outlines in the OP. We don't live in a world where what is just is the only thing that matters and that is what makes it fucked up but it doesn't make it untrue.

Click to shrink...

Read the OP again. It can't co-exist with Biden's statement (well, you can't agree to both simultaneously).

 

[DigitalOp]

The quote is accurate. You have deviated from the meaning of the word "excuse" as your formed the arguments in your OP, such that you started taking the meaning "anger does not excuse violence" to mean "violence cannot have a positive eventual outcome".

I get that the conversation of the thread has moved on to it being more about "whether Biden is right to make such a statement that denounces anyone participating in violence", but in terms of the statement itself, it is not unsound.

Click to shrink...

In order to make the conclusion, you completely deleted "anger at the racial injustice in our society has no excuse"

it's wrong. If that statement was correct then the Civil War wasn't justified under the same standard.

It's a completely asinine statement esp coming from White Govt towards Black Citizens

 

[Advance.Wars.Sgt.]

Kinda scary how people are implying that ignoring the circumstances of the murder of yet another Black person is a reasonable political stance if that gets you closer to be president.

Click to shrink...

Wait long enough and users here will tell you in as many words that they don't really give a fuck about black people.

"Black Lives Matter" is less a call to action and more so to them a mere participation ribbon stating they passed the bare minimum of human decency. And look - it's even trademarked now, to be repackaged and sold to masses so they can make a quick buck off of black oppression just like the forefathers of this nation did. How poetically American.

 

[dabig2]

Serious question to you and anyone else who thinks this way. When is the appropriate time for yall? How much longer do you want oppressed and marginalized people to wait for their rights and for justice?

Click to shrink...

Folks claiming that this is just like a 2020 election thing are fooling themselves. We've been having these convos and arguments about moderate liberal antipathy towards true change because it'll scare away the white voter.

a favorite article of mine, ngl

Even Though He Is Revered Today, MLK Was Widely Disliked by the American Public When He Was Killed

Seventy-five percent of Americans disapproved of the civil rights leader as he spoke out against the Vietnam War and economic disparity

www.smithsonianmag.com

King had made passing allusions to this possibility before, but a straightforward call for an active biracial coalition of have-nots was just as terrifying to white ruling elites, be they on Peachtree Street or Wall Street, as it had been when raised by the Populists in the 1890s.

King did nothing to quell these concerns when he later told David Halberstam that he had abandoned the incremental approach to social change of his civil rights protest days in favor of pursuing "a reconstruction of the entire society, a revolution of values," one which would "look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation."

King's vision of a "revolution in values" was not purely domestic. In April 1967, he denounced American involvement in Vietnam, once at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and once at Riverside Church in New York before 3,000 people, on April 4, precisely a year before he was killed.

Click to shrink...

Former Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee Chairman Stokely Carmichael observed that, in this case, King was taking on not a hapless, wholly unsympathetic villain like Birmingham's Sheriff Eugene "Bull" Connor, but rather "the entire policy of the United States government." The consequences were swift and severe: an outraged President Lyndon Johnson cut off all contact with King. And a great number of black Americans—including many old allies and colleagues from the civil rights years—warned that his stance could have devastating consequences for their cause.

King hardly fared better in pursuing his domestic agenda. It was one thing to capture public sympathy nationwide when pitted against the raw hatred and brutality that seemed the peculiar province of whites below the Mason-Dixon Line. It proved quite another to persuade whites outside the South to share their neighborhoods and jobs with blacks, or to support expensive federal assistance programs dedicated to helping blacks overcome the historic disadvantages imposed on them by whites of earlier generations.

Click to shrink...

It's the eternal argument. There's never a season for to take a strong position against historical systemic abuse. So you protect the police, you protect the institutions, and you defame and decry the people crying out loud, usually always trending black and disenfranchised.

Yeah, it's a strategy. And it's been the strategy going back to when Frederick Douglass got up on a stage to talk to some white people and dropped on them "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July".

​

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. ​

But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued.
What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue?
On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man?

That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave.
​

Sound familiar yeah? Same struggle, different generation.

 

[Musubi]

If you think any meaningful progress will be made for criminal justice during Biden's time should he win then you're fucking crazy.

 

[Rocket Man]

It's not a great statement but it's probably the safest one.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

He's obviously wrong but he has to say that.

 

[Jegriva]

Not american here, but from a country that had an actual war a few decades ago. Violence should always be the last resort, not an asset.

People disagreeing with him are the same that nonetheless disagreed with Obama using drones?

 

[Freezasaurus]

There are points in history where violence is required to force change. Regardless, a presidential candidate saying so would be....unwise... when things are so fragile. The GOP would absolutely capitalize on such a statement, and they'd be right to.

 

[Good4Squat]

I think violence isn't the best solution in most cases where it is regularly used. Though obviously it has its place in self defense at a certain point.

 

[Yayate]

C'mon dude. It wouldve been so easy to nail that statement, without having to ~sacrifice moderates~. You can say violence is bad without putting the blame on the people protesting. You can say violence is bad, but not outright say its inexcusable or not a deserved reaction to the shit going on right now.

If you need to make a lukewarm statement, call the violence a '(regrettable) consequence'. Don't paint the victims as equally bad and don't put any focus on the ~looting~. Jesus christ.

I do agree that it'd be a terrible idea for any political candidate to support the violence, but you could've just shut up about it. No one is going to care that you left out the 'looting' if you just said 'shooting black people is bad'.

 

[Kyra]

Read the OP again. It can't co-exist with Biden's statement (well, you can't agree to both simultaneously).

Click to shrink...

It can coexist with Biden's statement but no you can't agree with both.

 

[riverfr0zen]

In order to make the conclusion, you completely deleted "anger at the racial injustice in our society has no excuse"

Click to shrink...

No, I deleted it for clarity of my argument, not because I needed to do so to make the conclusion. Even if you use the long form "anger at the racial injustice in our society has no excuse for violence", it does not change my argument that you have conflated the meaning of "does not excuse violence" with "violence cannot have positive outcomes" (or even "violence is what was necessary").

The distinction is important. You may have people who "had to be violent to make real necessary changes at the time". That does not mean that, even if eventually seen by everyone as a "good thing", those same people can get away without some form of hearing where their actions are reviewed against the outcomes and the overall situation. They aren't just "automatically excused".

With the Tea Party incident, that "hearing" had no venue, since it was an overthrow of government and the English legal system as established in America at the time evaporated.

But that is not the situation we are in now, especially with Biden (or anyone who would be running for President). Dismantling the existing legal system is not a ticket item with any real clout in the country at this time.

it's wrong. If that statement was correct then the Civil War wasn't justified under the same standard.

Click to shrink...

And right away, you are going down the path of conflating two different meanings again.

C'mon dude. It wouldve been so easy to nail that statement, without having to ~sacrifice moderates~. You can say violence is bad without putting the blame on the people protesting. You can say violence is bad, but not outright say its inexcusable or not a deserved reaction to the shit going on right now.

If you need to make a lukewarm statement, call the violence a '(regrettable) consequence'. Don't paint the victims as equally bad and don't put any focus on the ~looting~. Jesus christ.

I do agree that it'd be a terrible idea for any political candidate to support the violence, but you could've just shut up about it. No one is going to care that you left out the 'looting' if you just said 'shooting black people is bad'.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I agree with this.

 

[night814]

Don't agree. But we are also 6 days away from an election that he needs to win so I can accept an answer like this on those terms.

 

[Mekanos]

Not american here, but from a country that had an actual war a few decades ago. Violence should always be the last resort, not an asset.

People disagreeing with him are the same that nonetheless disagreed with Obama using drones?

Click to shrink...

You seriously think state sanctioned violence is the same as the oppressed rising up against their oppressors?

 

[Deleted member 11985]

There is no overthrowing the system anymore, at least not in today's America. A bunch of people can go cosplay as anarchists and throw bricks at buildings for a few weeks, but that's not going to affect even a fraction of the larger population that will still be comfortably carrying on as if nothing's happening and will still be propping up the system.

So that boils down violence to just raising public awareness, basically. But you can raise public awareness just fine with peaceful protests, and you still ultimately need elected officials to enact the changes you want from the protests, so voting is still equally as important as protesting.

I suppose you could directly affect change through violence by going full blown terrorist and taking over cities with guerilla warfare tactics. But honestly, fuck off if you seriously support something like that.

So yes, I agree with Biden's statement. And reading all this edgelord shit promoting violence on this forum is starting to get insufferable. It's like when 4chan cheers on school shooters.