-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
In Defense of Looting
- Thread starter signal
- Start date
- Status
The cops loot and burn stuff too to delegitimize the protests, no better argument than that as to why its a dumb move to do it for them.
Not usually as I don't generally break things intentionally in the first place but even then the context of me breaking my own shit in my own house is vastly different than in the context of a riot and whether or not the rioters were even thinking about the fact they'd have to rebuild at the time they were breaking shit is irrelevant to whether or not they will contribute in some way to help rebuild later. And no I don't think most of the rioters likely know how to put a building back together but I do believe that plenty of them will make an organised attempt to support the rebuilding process in whatever ways they are equipped to do so for small businesses owned by people within the community.
Oh, apologies, didn't know who she was will remove it from my posts
Correction, you're not gaining support because white people are fucking racist. Anyone with an honest heart can see that a monstrous racial police state is the cause of everything.
If anything, Hong Kong is a perfect example of how peaceful protest doesn't get shit done. It was largely peaceful for months, and pressure on the gov't to do something only turned up when tensions escalated, property started getting destroyed, trains and roads were shut down, etc. All the people decrying violence can fuck off and read a history book.
Stealing stuff doesn't bring people back to life.
Violent protest when all options are exhausted is a point worth discussing, but I don't really see how looting does anything to work towards the goals of the oppressed (outside of having some stuff now, which the article itself argues isn't the point).
Looting does nothing to get the public on your side, even without the influence of the media.
Obviously there are some looters just trying to take advantage of the chaos. But all these people clutching their pearls about the looting are missing or ignoring the bigger picture of why it's happening in the first place. Almost none of them are being affected by the looting, but everyone in this country is affected by the militarization of and abuse of power by the police, even if you're white, especially if you're poor and white. So why aren't you speaking out about something that actually plays a role in your daily life instead of something of focusing on something that doesn't?
That's a really good speech.
"But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights."
That feels like it hits the nail on the head. People are so upset at the property damage, but shrug their shoulders and give lip service at yet another black person murdered with impunity.
That is something I agree with. The issue is that looting gives the media ammunition to divert attention away from the true injustice, and put the blame back on marginalized groups. It gives white centrists reason NOT to take the side of oppressed minorities.
The phenomenon I just posted about where people on twitter outraged at the looting usually have no past posts outraged at the police abuse, seems to be the case here too. Just a quick glimpse at some of the posters in this thread that are vehemently against the looting, never posted at all about Arbery or Floyd but looting has them posting a ton lol. It's pretty easy to spot them. So ya don't worry about thier minds changing because they don't even care about the cop abuse in the first place they might tag that they do now but it's just to lube up thier looting stance.
Pleasing white moderates isn't a pressing concern when the uprising is because of police murdering your people with impunity. On top of that, you can't control mob mentality.
Just lay the blame where it goes: white supremacist police state. And recognize looting as an inavoidable part of a justified uprising.
Mass produced items are by far more valuable than human lives; especially black people's lives.
That's what people who are more concerned with "looting" are basically saying.
It's say everything that activist that have given their lives for the civil rights moment have these poignant quotes either defending or explicitly acknowledging that riots are tools of the oppressed but we apparently should take our direction from white moderates, because reasons?
That's what people who are more concerned with "looting" are basically saying.
It's say everything that activist that have given their lives for the civil rights moment have these poignant quotes either defending or explicitly acknowledging that riots are tools of the oppressed but we apparently should take our direction from white moderates, because reasons?
so what your saying is these people are overeacting to the police in this country continuing to kill black people for no damn reason?
people need to understand that looting offends white people more than black bodies getting murdered on camera.
Remember when they peacefully kneeled and got ridiculed, and attacked?
Remember when people just marched and blocked highways, but they got ridiculed and attacked?
It's a losing battle no matter what.
Completely agree. In my opinion there can be no defence for looting, doing so only hurts your own cause.
Looting is opportunist, people see easy targets to get things without repercussions regardless of consequences to anybody else.
As a movement, you want to get the general public on your side and looting is a great way of making sure that doesn't happen. When you have the moral high ground and are championing a really important cause there's no need for any of that.
Looting just dilutes the message and leaves the movement open to attacks from the Government/the Police.
Looting just dilutes the message and leaves the movement open to attacks from the Government/the Police.
White moderates doing nothing is how we got here in the first place.
They just want black people to quietly take it.
Do you think the civil rights movement happened peacefully?
Last edited:
Looting is just a symptom of the bigger problem of inequality, a society built on consumerism when people barely have enough money to buy food on a day to day basis results in this kind of behaviour once protests start. Looting and vandalism are an inevitable part of these kind of protests once they turn violent, you don't have to condone it to understand why desperate people do it. It's easy for the police to let it happen though because it allows the media to portray protesters as the bad guys when it's far more complicated than that.
They just want black people to suffer quietly and politely.
These fucks care more about cheap mass produced TVs than actual human lives... and this moral centrism is supposed to be superior...
I think if you're trying to send a message it should be as pure as possible, looting muddies it and leads to questioning the motive, just straight up destroy instead.
That said, even though I don't personally think destruction is the way, today the attention span of events is so short that you need maximum impact as soon as it happens, if not you fade into the background and lose all public interest. So in that sense destruction is an alternative to peaceful longtime disruption.
That said, even though I don't personally think destruction is the way, today the attention span of events is so short that you need maximum impact as soon as it happens, if not you fade into the background and lose all public interest. So in that sense destruction is an alternative to peaceful longtime disruption.
This 100%.
Also for the blissfuly uninformed in this thread, do everyone a favour and listen to this speech:
Seems relevant to mention that this book is free atm in ebook form:
www.haymarketbooks.org
Who Do You Serve, Who Do You Protect?
Explores the reality of US police violence against Black, Brown and Indigenous communities.
Thank you! Me and my family are in the U.K. talk about this stuff a lot. We're Black British and it's the same thing over here too it's just more veiled than in the USA. Personally I've hit a point that violent dissent I think is the only way we going to get change as the whole protesting peacefully doesn't seem to do a damn thing.
You kneel and they say 'not like that', you vote and they 'suppress your ability to vote'. It's as if any form you take to end racism the infrastructure e.g. 'white supremacy' 'mass consumerism' etc does any and anything in its power to stop it.
Last edited:
I really wish the people who are against looting amid black uprisings against their oppression just come out and say that you really don't give a shit about black lives.
We know full and well we have no allies regardless of which political action we take. No need to mince words.
We know full and well we have no allies regardless of which political action we take. No need to mince words.
However well reasoned a defense to looting of private property might be, and Baldwin's defense is, it never plays well on the news because the vast majority of viewers internalize private property damage and try to place themselves in the mind of the property owner. It doesn't help that looters are portrayed as "savages" (loaded term). So the "civilized" viewer at home, who frankly isn't all that invested in whatever people are protesting about, cannot relate. Hence why few people give a shit about the destruction of public property, such as burning down a police station and destroying cop cars but you graffiti a private building and people lose their minds (this is true the world over).
That said, the media unquestionably covers stories differently when involving protests vs say unruly celebrations in college towns after winning a championship or a big game. No one is viewing college kids destroying cars and storefronts as part of a celebration the same as protesters are viewed.
That said, the media unquestionably covers stories differently when involving protests vs say unruly celebrations in college towns after winning a championship or a big game. No one is viewing college kids destroying cars and storefronts as part of a celebration the same as protesters are viewed.
Last edited:
This right here. People that never showed a care in world for the ongoing abuse of black people at the hands of police but all of a sudden have a ton to say about looting need to sit down and stfu. Everyone needs to get the message that if authorities drag thier feet prosecuting the murders of black people at the hands of cops or racists then there will be riots in the streets. Motivated prosecution of wrongful death isn't too much to ask.
OP
OP
Yeah like blaze posted, it's easy enough to let at least some amount of looting and general destruction happen because you can assume how most people at home will view it.
I have no interest in hand wringing about this. Y'all act like they are lining citizens up on the side of the road. The scale of difference between what the oppressed and oppressors have done is immense.
Protest needs to be disruptive for anyone to take note. Nobody is going to give a fuck if you get your permit and go stand over there out of the way. Your voice should be heard, but just not by us because we're trying to sleep
But it's not unrelated. Not saying there isn't collateral damage, but you should definitely read about people's relationships to some of the places destroyed. Apparently that specific Target denied service to people wanting to buy stuff to help treat their injuries after the initial protests.
Is this supposed to be a compelling argument or something?
This situation isn't so simplistic.
Im watching the looting on the news and Im fucking applauding. Get fucked with your shitty concern for optics, it goes both ways. Looting and breaking and setting shit on fire reminds those in power that they are flesh and they can bleed like everyone else. It's used when there are literally no other options.
Yep, most people fall into this category, especially when protesting interfers with their daily commute. I am guilty of this myself.
You're quite correct. If we want to be more specific, to the white moderate:
white lives > private property > black lives
This poster is arguing in defense of Black people taking whatever avenues they can to fight their oppression - including the desecration/theft of property - and they're the one arguing in bad faith?
LMAO
What on earth? Those quotes are making looting look as if its done symbolically which it isn't.
I would argue its borderline human nature to get swept up in the chaos. You bloods pumping, rage is flowing throw you, then you hear a glass shatter. Cheers go through the crowd. You turn and your new friends and allies are rushing into a store, smashing things and grabbing them. Before you know it, your feet are rushing over to join them. Some of them probably aren't even really thinking about it, it's just another expression of the anger in general that brought them there in the first place.
If the post had said something to that effect, sure, then it makes sense to me. (Though I also don't agree with people ITT saying it's only big corps like Target Walmart etc getting hit here, small business owners get fucked as well)
"Why is bad to improve well-being through looting?" Why is this post trying to add a thoughtful, instrospective reason to loot when it's a visceral, emotional reaction?
I would argue its borderline human nature to get swept up in the chaos. You bloods pumping, rage is flowing throw you, then you hear a glass shatter. Cheers go through the crowd. You turn and your new friends and allies are rushing into a store, smashing things and grabbing them. Before you know it, your feet are rushing over to join them. Some of them probably aren't even really thinking about it, it's just another expression of the anger in general that brought them there in the first place.
If the post had said something to that effect, sure, then it makes sense to me. (Though I also don't agree with people ITT saying it's only big corps like Target Walmart etc getting hit here, small business owners get fucked as well)
"Why is bad to improve well-being through looting?" Why is this post trying to add a thoughtful, instrospective reason to loot when it's a visceral, emotional reaction?
I'm not sure of the effectiveness in the micro, in that you aren't going to win any hearts or minds that way and risk losing them instead, and while the cost is abstract it is still likely born by the most vulnerable in the community. The local tax dollars to repair the damage have to come from somewhere, and that's almost always the school system or other social programs, which disproportionately affects poor and/or minority communities harder.
That said, in the macro, it's unfortunately important to carry a big stick. Looting and destructive protests are necessary threats if only on a transactional "don't kill us or we'll burn down the city" level.
That said, in the macro, it's unfortunately important to carry a big stick. Looting and destructive protests are necessary threats if only on a transactional "don't kill us or we'll burn down the city" level.
Article is pretty dense. Didn't finish it but from what I read so far it still comes off as wrong.
It brings up certain points that are interesting and partially correct but fundamentally wrong such as making distinction about looters vs protester plays into the hands of divide and conquer strategy. Yes defending the actions of protesters by pointing out how the ones who are peaceful are in the majority divides us from those who are looting but it doesn't matter.
Looters by far usually hurt the neighborhoods they live in which was also the case for Ferguson. Looters obviously have issues that the peaceful types are trying to fix but when you financial weaken the position of those protesters looters are blunting the energy peaceful protesters have to effect change.
Secondly as the author admits, Looters don't give a fuck about what they are looting. While they are victims of society they are simply lashing out instead of doing anything that is productive in pushing back like the majority of people protesting.
Looters by their own nature unintentionally divide themselves away from other forms of protest.
Since the article is about looting I'm guessing the author sidesteps violent protesters, people who critically think about what they are doing but assert through themselves with the threat of violence to back up their speech such as protesters who openly carry firearms while making themselves heard. If the author had thought to talk about violent protesters I feel they might have constructed a better argument with that in mind.
I will say that there is one section I felt was mostly right. Looting (or violence for that matter) encourages the media to report an incident more seriously but the author implies that this is always the case. I think peaceful protests need to reach a much larger critical mass to get equally serious attention such as the protests against Trump's internment camps for immigrants have recently proven. So the author is correct that looters unintentionally help peaceful protesters get more attention most of the time but this isn't always necessary to acquire such a focus.
It brings up certain points that are interesting and partially correct but fundamentally wrong such as making distinction about looters vs protester plays into the hands of divide and conquer strategy. Yes defending the actions of protesters by pointing out how the ones who are peaceful are in the majority divides us from those who are looting but it doesn't matter.
Looters by far usually hurt the neighborhoods they live in which was also the case for Ferguson. Looters obviously have issues that the peaceful types are trying to fix but when you financial weaken the position of those protesters looters are blunting the energy peaceful protesters have to effect change.
Secondly as the author admits, Looters don't give a fuck about what they are looting. While they are victims of society they are simply lashing out instead of doing anything that is productive in pushing back like the majority of people protesting.
Looters by their own nature unintentionally divide themselves away from other forms of protest.
Since the article is about looting I'm guessing the author sidesteps violent protesters, people who critically think about what they are doing but assert through themselves with the threat of violence to back up their speech such as protesters who openly carry firearms while making themselves heard. If the author had thought to talk about violent protesters I feel they might have constructed a better argument with that in mind.
I will say that there is one section I felt was mostly right. Looting (or violence for that matter) encourages the media to report an incident more seriously but the author implies that this is always the case. I think peaceful protests need to reach a much larger critical mass to get equally serious attention such as the protests against Trump's internment camps for immigrants have recently proven. So the author is correct that looters unintentionally help peaceful protesters get more attention most of the time but this isn't always necessary to acquire such a focus.
You could probably squeeze in "negative twitter timeline" before black lives also. Oh boy do they hate being stressed out by bad news:(
That MLK quote really cuts deep to so many pretenders.
Four cops on trial for murder. No more unjustified police violence against minorities.
- Status