It literally makes it okay when the people it directly affects are saying it's okay. You don't get to insert your opinion on that. It's irrelevant.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
In Defense of Looting
- Thread starter signal
- Start date
- Status
It literally makes it okay when the people it directly affects are saying it's okay. You don't get to insert your opinion on that. It's irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. This thread tries to defend looting and destruction in a general sense, I disagree. This isn't just about one instance.
It doesn't have to be the best respresentation. It's a representation and it's one to act on.
As would I.
But Society has also primed me to dread driving down the street because I'm an almost 33 year old black man who lives in white dominated suburbs and drives a nice, clean, modern Hyundai Elantra while wearing a fitted cap and listening to rap music in case I get pulled over by an asshole cop who's having a bad day.
Or dread the day one of the people in my neighborhood forgets that I live here when I go walk down the street to check the mail.
Or dread the winter time because some white lady decides to clutch her purse while in front of me because I'm a black guy in a winter jacket and hoodie because it's 33 degrees outside and all I care about is getting out of the cold so I can eat my shitty fast food on my lunch break.
I dread A shit ton of things; and I'd burn my fucking job down my damn self if it meant that no one had to dread any of the above.
Yeah, I don't see it. People invested in changing conditions usually don't prioritize their own financial gain at the expense of a tragedy.
I do get that it's just a natural consequence of civil unrest, and that people should be smart enough to look past that and into what's making people so angry that they reached that level.
I do get that it's just a natural consequence of civil unrest, and that people should be smart enough to look past that and into what's making people so angry that they reached that level.
It's fully legitimate. America stole their lives, their labor, the fruits of such, their homes, their land, their history, and refuses reparations... are you really going to deny them the right of revolt and the right to take a pittance of it back?
FUCK. THAT. ✊🏻
FUCK. THAT. ✊🏻
"The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power. Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state. When rioters take territory and loot, they are revealing precisely how, in a space without cops, property relations can be destroyed and things can be had for free."
Some points on this part in particular:
Looting is least dangerous to the rich. Which of them will actually suffer from it? Maybe insurance or reinsurance companies will take a small short-term hit at worst. It seems crazy to me to say that looting reveals private property to be a tenuous construct. Quite the opposite. Most of the looted, and certainly people watching, are going to be keenly aware of what could happen to their own property. They're going to be more open to the force of the state, not less.
Property relations can indeed be destroyed, at least for a while. The result isn't going to be some anarchist paradise--it's going to be a wave of support to restore the status quo, by heavy-handed means if necessary.
None of what I'm saying is speculative. Looting has happened before in many times, in many places, and we have plenty of data to see what the longer-term effects are. The author of the article is engaging in wishful thinking.
Some points on this part in particular:
Looting is least dangerous to the rich. Which of them will actually suffer from it? Maybe insurance or reinsurance companies will take a small short-term hit at worst. It seems crazy to me to say that looting reveals private property to be a tenuous construct. Quite the opposite. Most of the looted, and certainly people watching, are going to be keenly aware of what could happen to their own property. They're going to be more open to the force of the state, not less.
Property relations can indeed be destroyed, at least for a while. The result isn't going to be some anarchist paradise--it's going to be a wave of support to restore the status quo, by heavy-handed means if necessary.
None of what I'm saying is speculative. Looting has happened before in many times, in many places, and we have plenty of data to see what the longer-term effects are. The author of the article is engaging in wishful thinking.
The people burning buildings and seizing property did more to get Chauvin arrested than anyone hand-wringing in this thread about civility.
If you want to be angry about this purely on principle then fine whatever I'm not going to stop you but at least be angry at the right people. Don't focus your anger on the people who are expressing an anger that has built up over time as a result of their oppression and focus it on the people and the systems who have caused that oppression instead. Riots and looting are the natural consequence of a system that is hostile towards people for simply existing
But it's not working this way. Burning down these bussinesses don't change anything. I understand why they feel the need to let their anger out in such destructive ways, but I disagree with the sentiment that this is okay.
Oh. I'm angry at the system that let all this happen, and it really needs to change. But I just don't think that this is the right way to bring the long needed change.
The killer cop was arrested only because people started to attack private property.
You can say it's not the case, but it is.
But what is explained is that it is not about the financial gain for the looters. There is a message behind it. They are not prioritizing financial gain, I would consider the financial loss for the instances a higher priority, but even that is only part of the reasoning.
Its the only reason this cop was arrested and charged in this case.
It's the only reason the civil rights movement succeeded.
It's the only reason women can vote.
It's the only reason American gained independence.
You're completely out of touch.
Nice read.
I don't believe there's that much "meaningless" looting going on now (e.g the Target store redistribution posted somewhere above) , but this piece on the London riots of 2011 is pretty good in making sense of it if/when it does occur:
I don't believe there's that much "meaningless" looting going on now (e.g the Target store redistribution posted somewhere above) , but this piece on the London riots of 2011 is pretty good in making sense of it if/when it does occur:
OP
OP
I didn't condemn the burning of the police station. That place was directly related to the injustice. That I can understand.
You can't be knowledgeable about how thoroughly America has tried to destroy black people and wring your hands over the rioting and looting.
It is however annoying to see people who normally say or do fuck all to support black issues perk up when it starts to go down.
It is however annoying to see people who normally say or do fuck all to support black issues perk up when it starts to go down.
And what is the right way then? Cause I know for a fact that peaceful protests alone aren't enough to change a system that has oppression so heavily ingrained into how it works
For all the people bringing up HK protest...
I don't know if I should be offened or flattered that Asians are again used as a scapegoat/model minority to put down other minorities.
I don't know if I should be offened or flattered that Asians are again used as a scapegoat/model minority to put down other minorities.
Somebody probably already said it but there were looters in HK as well. It's only news in US/Europe when black americans do it ;)
More looting of HK shops hit by vandalism, arson
Hong Kong police recorded more than 80 cases of arson involving shops with alleged links to mainland China since October 1 and some shop owners reported losses of property as well as damage to thei…
asiatimes.com
Last edited:
User Banned (1 Month): Concern Trolling In a Sensitive Thread; Prior Related Bans
There are many examples of peaceful protests (over a longer period of time) that brought change. And if you absolutely need to let your (rightful) anger out in a more destructive way, at least focus of the responsible locations, not unrelated ones.
They tried to protest peacefully: they were ignored and brutalised.
You reap what you sow.
annoying? but we need them to perk up.
so the only people who are allowed to become radicalised are people who were woke before the mass event? what a losing strategy.
If its a big company like Target or Walmart or w.e sure. They have really good insurance and are huge companies. The message gets across in that instance.
I don't really like the idea of looting, but I guess nobody is trying to pay 30% of their income to fund and get screwed over systematically by racists. You're gonna want to take back what got stolen from you understandably.
2020 is a ride yo.
I don't really like the idea of looting, but I guess nobody is trying to pay 30% of their income to fund and get screwed over systematically by racists. You're gonna want to take back what got stolen from you understandably.
2020 is a ride yo.
Last edited:
Don't tell the oppressed how they should express their anger at the system/goverment that exploit and oppress them.
- The protests and destruction that resulted got your attention. That changed from the last instance of police violence, where you probably paid your lip service in a thread here and moved on.
- One of the murderous assholes has been arrested and charged within a week. The only other times we have such speedy results such as this in prior situations has always been after a massive, destructive protest.
It's the most noticeable change we've had yet.
And you're not angry at the system. You may be frustrated and disappointed, but you're not angry. If you were angry, you'd be exactly where I am instead of trying to suggest that locking arms and continued marches are better for the long haul as if we don't have 50 fucking well documented years protests being ignored before people get sick of being disregarded and start burning shit down.
Protests and riots, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X; we are where we are today because of both because when the first stops working, we use the next. Do more to assist with the former and no one will resort to the latter.
The police station was burned because the police abandoned it. They abandoned it because they were under continuous pressure to respond to rioting and property damage. It literally would not have been possible to attack the symbol of injustice without more widespread damage.
Could you list some examples from the United States of strictly peaceful protest movements that effected change? Because that absolutely does not describe women's suffrage, Black civil rights, or any anti-war movement that I can think of.
I'm not saying that peaceful protest can never bring any change but the change required to truly end the oppression and essentially state approved murder of black people is not something that can be achieved through that method alone.
As much as I don't think looting actually affects the rich as much as people hope it does and only really damages small businesses, it does make a strong statement and it did get the job done - the murdering wanker of a cop got arrested and charged with murder, right? That wouldn't have happened without the looting.
So it worked. Can't really argue with the results when peaceful protest doesn't do shit. Nothing worth fighting for is won peacefully, sadly.
If white people wanna walk up to town halls or whatever, armed to the teeth to yell about how the lockdown is oppression, then I don't have a single problem with black people breaking shit to bring actual oppression to light.
So it worked. Can't really argue with the results when peaceful protest doesn't do shit. Nothing worth fighting for is won peacefully, sadly.
If white people wanna walk up to town halls or whatever, armed to the teeth to yell about how the lockdown is oppression, then I don't have a single problem with black people breaking shit to bring actual oppression to light.
black people have been protesting for decades. do you expect people to protest peacefully forever?
I don't think targeting huge companies with really good insurance that are barely hurt by the actions will really get the impact of the message across.
When all you know of political movements and change is the glossed over aspects of it from history class in order to meet the two week deadline so the teacher can move on to some other shit, you lose perspective.
Keep in mind the United States Of America was founded by bunch of people who peacefully protested before they started burning the fuck outta shit and grabbing guns.
But I guess things are different now.
I have to admit that I'm not that well versed with American history, I was more thinking about European examples. Do you think they can't be compared? Honest question.
The Target down in the MIdway is a strong representation of gentrification in that area. It's been a sore spot for that neighborhood since the moment it was announced. There was every reason for that people down on University to go after it even if it didn't go down like the other one. I'm actually surprised more of an effort wasn't made on Allianz Field. They didn't go after a Target just because it's a big corporation, it specifically hurt that neighborhood.
https://rondobeyondthepavement.org/ you can check out this documentary on that issue in that area and realize that this area wasn't just randomly selected, there is every reason for them to go hard.
https://rondobeyondthepavement.org/ you can check out this documentary on that issue in that area and realize that this area wasn't just randomly selected, there is every reason for them to go hard.
First of all, any statement that starts with "so" and continues with some random interpretation of what I said usually gets ignored outright but I'll clarify.
By "perk up" I mean get happy and start pushing their own pet projects and political agendas on to the backs of black people who they normally ignore.
Does EU have a history of police killing black people in broad daylight multiple times on camera, and not being held responsible for those murders?
Genuinely curious - how do people even think peaceful protest creates change? Like, what is the mechanism? Do you think people look at crowds of people waving signs and think "Oh shit, a bunch of people disagree with what we're doing, so we should change"?
No one cares that people are waving signs. The reason protest can work at all is that if people are passionate to organize, come out and wave signs, then people are probably passionate enough to start tearing things down if their voices keep being continuously ignored. Protests are a threat. Without the threat, protests can be ignored forever.
No one cares that people are waving signs. The reason protest can work at all is that if people are passionate to organize, come out and wave signs, then people are probably passionate enough to start tearing things down if their voices keep being continuously ignored. Protests are a threat. Without the threat, protests can be ignored forever.
The "Will never defend looting" crowd blatantly miss the point. Yes there are opportunists, but in the grand scheme of things it's irrelevant to the message represented. People are tired. Point blank. It doesn't need to be justifiable in your head and if it isn't you're probably privileged enough to not know the strife we experience everyday. People burned up tea when they weren't heard and that's in our history books. Who cares about a fucking Target with some insurance, who've already gone on record justifying the public anger themselves?
Im paraphrasing here but there's a quote on those who value order over justice, and that's the side those "couldn't defend looting" people fall on.
Im paraphrasing here but there's a quote on those who value order over justice, and that's the side those "couldn't defend looting" people fall on.
Thank you. This was a brilliant read. I would request that MLK's speech be added to the OP. And it should be mandatory reading for anyone posting in this thread. Specially this part-
A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.'
I read recently that peaceful protests that succeed often have the support of members of the ruling class backing them up, and the only form of peaceful protests to achieve their goals on their own are strikes.
When we had the riots in London 2011 following the shooting of Mark Duggan, there was looting and it didn't bother me that the likes of Footlocker got cleaned out, it did sadden me to see local business get burnt to the ground and shopkeepers having to defend their property.
Peaceful protest only gets you so far, or nowhere, so when your plight is ignored this is sometimes the only way to see some change.
Has anyone read much of James Baldwin? I've heard him in interviews and he's terrific, meant to read something of his.
Peaceful protest only gets you so far, or nowhere, so when your plight is ignored this is sometimes the only way to see some change.
Has anyone read much of James Baldwin? I've heard him in interviews and he's terrific, meant to read something of his.
How did you arrive at this opinion?
I'm not sure you are aware but handing a bunch of good-looking police officers some Pepsi cans seems to work very well, if PepsiCo's marketing department is to be believed.
This article doesn't really answer a couple of things for me.
Primarily that most things available in a store to be looted are just goods, not property in the sense that taking it is a transfer of wealth and capital.
I do think the analogy of slaves freeing themselves being like looting, is apt and does illustrate the power of "theft" to disrupt white supremacy. But personal freedom and humanity is one thing and stores and random stuff is another. I don't have much sympathy for a lot of stuff getting burned down. But IMO, goods are an ineffective target and not the transfer that needs to happen.
Most people in our capitalist society are exploited by a system that works us to death for virtually nothing to gain in wealth and power. Instead they offer us goods that make us complacent and satisfied. If goods are the objective we look for to quell unrest, then it seems like they win whether we bought it or stole it.
Primarily that most things available in a store to be looted are just goods, not property in the sense that taking it is a transfer of wealth and capital.
I do think the analogy of slaves freeing themselves being like looting, is apt and does illustrate the power of "theft" to disrupt white supremacy. But personal freedom and humanity is one thing and stores and random stuff is another. I don't have much sympathy for a lot of stuff getting burned down. But IMO, goods are an ineffective target and not the transfer that needs to happen.
Most people in our capitalist society are exploited by a system that works us to death for virtually nothing to gain in wealth and power. Instead they offer us goods that make us complacent and satisfied. If goods are the objective we look for to quell unrest, then it seems like they win whether we bought it or stole it.
Well the other option is small businesses. That's a quick way to lose support imo.
Im just goin off the articles argument that looting is symbolic in taking back from the oppresors. Multimillion buisnesses can be argued to be part of systematic oppression. That was my train of logic...idk
Private property is protected by having a just society where civil order doesn't break down because police are serial killers.
Unless you're going to post examples you haven't clarified at all.
Do these pet projects and political agendas help black people?
- Status