Youth riots in France

[Warsie]

I'll probably never understand this... How can you have further violence if the source of the violence has been obliterated?

Fuck, you're right, what a stupid idea. They should just cut the protesters to ribbons with gunfire and that'll be that. Surely none of the like minded anti-government or downtrodden people of France will be spurred into taking up their cause by this show of violent suppression? After all, it's doing wonders in Iraq, right?

also note that that did happen in the past
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

[hongi]

The rioters need to be locked up before the police decide to defend themselves.

[TheMuffinKing]

The rioters need to be locked up before the police decide to defend themselves.

How do you propose they do that? Doesn't that seem a little backwards?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The rioters need to be locked up before the police decide to defend themselves.

How do you propose they do that? Doesn't that seem a little backwards?

Not to mention, it will take ages to process thousands, or more. In fact, it will just inflame the situation. Anyone wants to lock up a Ghetto full of people?

[brianeyci]

I don't accept that having a legitimate complaint gives you an excuse to destroy somebody elses property or endanger the lives of those around you just because you feel like it.

That's because you haven't felt true oppression or draw the wrong conclusions from the civil rights era. If the letter of the law is unethical and supports the establishment, and the only way to change the establishment is to rock the boat and make life uncomfortable for the ruling party, then so be it.

I don't think that the Palestinian Intifadas are justified, firstly because Israel is a democratic nation which allows for practising of any religion and secondly because they take it too far and kill innocents. But you can still use the same logic, and say that to draw attention to a cause, if it is worthy enough, sometimes groups need extreme measures. Suppose Intifadas had been set up more ethically with massive protests to paralyze the Israeli economy and some kind of passive resistance movement with guys sitting in the street. That is endangering lives, getting run over, and perhaps they run around destroying property. What would you think then?

The lines are not so clear. It always depends on the cause, and the need, whether you need to resort to extremes.

I think it's perfectly ok for the news networks cover the story. Let them do so. I'm not advocating a total media blackout, which is what you seem to be strawmanning my position into

Not at all. I just don't see the point in any media blackout at all, and see no purpose behind it. I also see potential for great abuse. So to me, any media blackout is tantamount to total media blackout, unless it is ordered by a judge for specific cases. That isn't exactly what you're saying though: you're saying there should be a blanket law to cover protests and riots, and that the government should be the ones making the decision when such law gets applied, putting extreme power into the executive or legislative branch for something that traditionally has been in the power of judiciary and only in extreme cases, at least for functioning developed nations.

[Lancer]

I don't accept that having a legitimate complaint gives you an excuse to destroy somebody elses property or endanger the lives of those around you just because you feel like it.

That's because you haven't felt true oppression or draw the wrong conclusions from the civil rights era. If the letter of the law is unethical and supports the establishment, and the only way to change the establishment is to rock the boat and make life uncomfortable for the ruling party, then so be it.

In the framework of a democratic society, there are much better ways to achieve change than to aimlessly lash out at society as a whole. If the civil rights movement had used methods that you suggest are allowable if you percieve that you are being oppressed, then they would have alienated much of the support they needed to achieve the gains they made.

Another example, using the context of the American Revolutionary War: if the Whigs had started their movement by aimlessly burning down cities and towns the moment they felt oppressed instead of submitting petitions to parliment, then many of the people who later joined them would have instead gave their support to the Tories. After all, wanton destruction of your property breeds resentment against those who committed the act, rather than support for. Even as it is, I don't feel that some of the actions that the Whigs took were justified.

I don't think that the Palestinian Intifadas are justified, firstly because Israel is a democratic nation which allows for practising of any religion and secondly because they take it too far and kill innocents. But you can still use the same logic, and say that to draw attention to a cause, if it is worthy enough, sometimes groups need extreme measures. Suppose Intifadas had been set up more ethically with massive protests to paralyze the Israeli economy and some kind of passive resistance movement with guys sitting in the street. That is endangering lives, getting run over, and perhaps they run around destroying property. What would you think then?

The lines are not so clear. It always depends on the cause, and the need, whether you need to resort to extremes.

I would certainly have significantly more sympathy for the Palestinians if they had employed a passive resistance moment, but that would evaporate pretty quickly if they reach Tel Aviv and subquently try to burn it to the ground.

If they sit in the middle of the road, then they're still purposefully acting in a criminally negligent manner by placing the lives of themselves and any motorists at risk, just as they would if they had gotten drunk and drove around a car in the name of their cause, so I won't support that in lieu of boycotts or organized rallys on public ground. Still, I'll admit that it's significantly better than parading around shooting AK47's and purposefully destroying the livelyhood of others.

I think it's perfectly ok for the news networks cover the story. Let them do so. I'm not advocating a total media blackout, which is what you seem to be strawmanning my position into

Not at all. I just don't see the point in any media blackout at all, and see no purpose behind it. I also see potential for great abuse. So to me, any media blackout is tantamount to total media blackout, unless it is ordered by a judge for specific cases. That isn't exactly what you're saying though: you're saying there should be a blanket law to cover protests and riots, and that the government should be the ones making the decision when such law gets applied, putting extreme power into the executive or legislative branch for something that traditionally has been in the power of judiciary and only in extreme cases, at least for functioning developed nations.

Unless you intend to show me where I said that a total media blackout should be applied universally, then it's still a strawman of my argument.

I put forward the jamming of cellphones and the arrests of those who break the law as well their accomplices (which, in the case of groups seeking to deliberately provoke law enforcement, would also result in the seizure of any equipment carried by their accomplices) as a possible response to a riot, as both a way of disrupting the existing riot and to curb any future riots.

There is a threshold that distinguishes a protest and a riot, which would be the same threshold that law enforcement would need before employing such measures. By leaving news networks unrestricted, you still leave the 4th estate as a check against the potential for abuse.

[K. A. Pital]

In the framework of a democratic society, there are much better ways to achieve change than to aimlessly lash out at society as a whole.

Depends on how much resources you have. If you're a resourceful organization, you can do point-actions and lobbying. If you're a bunch of poor coordinated by some aggravated people or even professional leaders elected to lead the riots, you don't really have much options.

Is escalation of riot violence a "unthought" decision? I'd say not. In fact, oftentimes it's the supported decision of the riot management, since the society gets more polarized and more massive actions are possible, as well as a dropping popularity for the current government - which can give opportunities for political pressure.

I would certainly have significantly more sympathy for the Palestinians if they had employed a passive resistance moment

The only case where a passive resistance movement succeeded in their goals is India, and even then, the British Empire was crumbling since the 1940s with major help from all sides and parties.

If they sit in the middle of the road, then they're still purposefully acting in a criminally negligent manner by placing the lives of themselves and any motorists at risk

Roadblockades are a common form of peaceful protest. In modern Russia, it's the most common type of strike demand - oftentimes factory workers would assemble the entire collective (usually after they haven't been paid their wages for SEVERAL MONTHS, which means they're running short on food), then go out and block a major road (or even go on a hunger-strike).

Do you think their actions are not justified? "Boo hoo, they locked a major transport artery" - what the fuck did you expect from starving people who want to get attention to their plight? As brian said, you probably don't understand the kind of conditions that makes people join such protests in the first place.

I put forward the jamming of cellphones and the arrests of those who break the law as well their accomplices (which, in the case of groups seeking to deliberately provoke law enforcement, would also result in the seizure of any equipment carried by their accomplices) as a possible response to a riot, as both a way of disrupting the existing riot and to curb any future riots.

That arrest lawbreaker practice is practiced in both Second and Third world to my knowledge and in the First World as well quite probably. Jamming cellphones is an abusive practice IMHO.

[brianeyci]

In the framework of a democratic society, there are much better ways to achieve change than to aimlessly lash out at society as a whole. If the civil rights movement had used methods that you suggest are allowable if you percieve that you are being oppressed, then they would have alienated much of the support they needed to achieve the gains they made.

Another example, using the context of the American Revolutionary War: if the Whigs had started their movement by aimlessly burning down cities and towns the moment they felt oppressed instead of submitting petitions to parliment, then many of the people who later joined them would have instead gave their support to the Tories. After all, wanton destruction of your property breeds resentment against those who committed the act, rather than support for. Even as it is, I don't feel that some of the actions that the Whigs took were justified.

That can only happen with organized movements which today are top-down and funded by political hacks. The irony of this is the more grassroots, the more legitimacy. However, the more grassroots, the more chance of random destruction. The problems faced by the Muslim youths in France are real. But without a top-down structure and leaders, if it's just a mob of very disgruntled people, there is nobody to issue orders and say, don't destroy this or don't destroy that.

Your American Revolutionary War example just destroys your own position. In the end they went against King and Country, raised an army, and caused great suffering and killed enemy soldiers. All over tax. There were obviously killings, and property destruction: it's why thousands of Tory fled the country to Canada. I don't necessarily agree with it all either, like you (I would have to look at it case by case), but the line is not so clear, is it?

I would certainly have significantly more sympathy for the Palestinians if they had employed a passive resistance moment, but that would evaporate pretty quickly if they reach Tel Aviv and subquently try to burn it to the ground.

If they sit in the middle of the road, then they're still purposefully acting in a criminally negligent manner by placing the lives of themselves and any motorists at risk, just as they would if they had gotten drunk and drove around a car in the name of their cause, so I won't support that in lieu of boycotts or organized rallys on public ground. Still, I'll admit that it's significantly better than parading around shooting AK47's and purposefully destroying the livelyhood of others.

I will turn your pander to the stupid right around to you. The high definition, fast food munching politically unaware masses will not do anything unless their own lives are affected in one way or another. In order to do this, you must inconvenience them, sometimes greatly. Sometimes immensely. This is the mechanism behind strikes, which usually illegally delay cars but only for several minutes. Even then, some people get pissed off, the convenience types like Ryan who think the protestors are "abnormal."

Obviously some will act like Ryan, but some will go, hey why the fuck are these guys so pissed off, and find out more about them. It may spur others into political action. In this day and age it may give them time with the media, national media coverage.

Unless you intend to show me where I said that a total media blackout should be applied universally, then it's still a strawman of my argument.

I put forward the jamming of cellphones and the arrests of those who break the law as well their accomplices (which, in the case of groups seeking to deliberately provoke law enforcement, would also result in the seizure of any equipment carried by their accomplices) as a possible response to a riot, as both a way of disrupting the existing riot and to curb any future riots.

There is a threshold that distinguishes a protest and a riot, which would be the same threshold that law enforcement would need before employing such measures. By leaving news networks unrestricted, you still leave the 4th estate as a check against the potential for abuse.

I ask you again: what is the goal of this? To prevent media sensationalism? I counter with the pander to the stupid example: the stupid masses will not react to long term drawn out affairs. If it takes something extreme to get their attention, then so be it, if the cause is just. The longer you can keep the extreme actions going, the longer the public attention is focused.

[Lancer]

In the framework of a democratic society, there are much better ways to achieve change than to aimlessly lash out at society as a whole.

Depends on how much resources you have. If you're a resourceful organization, you can do point-actions and lobbying. If you're a bunch of poor coordinated by some aggravated people or even professional leaders elected to lead the riots, you don't really have much options.

Is escalation of riot violence a "unthought" decision? I'd say not. In fact, oftentimes it's the supported decision of the riot management, since the society gets more polarized and more massive actions are possible, as well as a dropping popularity for the current government - which can give opportunities for political pressure.

Polarization (in the way you seem to be using the term) only works if you can turn a majority of the population to your cause, something which will not happen if you happen to be attacking the very people you need to attract to your cause. It's far more likely that your actions end up destroying any unified political will to address your complaints by creating an "us vs them" mentality.

I would certainly have significantly more sympathy for the Palestinians if they had employed a passive resistance moment

The only case where a passive resistance movement succeeded in their goals is India, and even then, the British Empire was crumbling since the 1940s with major help from all sides and parties.

If they sit in the middle of the road, then they're still purposefully acting in a criminally negligent manner by placing the lives of themselves and any motorists at risk

Roadblockades are a common form of peaceful protest. In modern Russia, it's the most common type of strike demand - oftentimes factory workers would assemble the entire collective (usually after they haven't been paid their wages for SEVERAL MONTHS, which means they're running short on food), then go out and block a major road (or even go on a hunger-strike).

Do you think their actions are not justified? "Boo hoo, they locked a major transport artery" - what the fuck did you expect from starving people who want to get attention to their plight? As brian said, you probably don't understand the kind of conditions that makes people join such protests in the first place.

Quote the entire thing instead of picking out some choice phrases. I said that I wouldn't support a road blockade in a situation where a public rally or boycott would be appropriate. I don't know enough about Russia to comment on the legal avenues for submitting greivances, but blocking a major transportation artery shouldn't be the first course of action.

I put forward the jamming of cellphones and the arrests of those who break the law as well their accomplices (which, in the case of groups seeking to deliberately provoke law enforcement, would also result in the seizure of any equipment carried by their accomplices) as a possible response to a riot, as both a way of disrupting the existing riot and to curb any future riots.

That arrest lawbreaker practice is practiced in both Second and Third world to my knowledge and in the First World as well quite probably. Jamming cellphones is an abusive practice IMHO.

Bryan was twisting my stance that you should arrest the lawbreakers, their accomplices, sieze their equipment, and generally render their organization non-functional into "abusive total media blackout."

[brianeyci]

I don't particularly care if you want cell phone jamming to be limited to civilians and not the media. How the fuck was I supposed to figure that out from your posts?

Strawman my ass. You threw your lot in with Ryan, and defended his premise that cell phone jamming should happen. It was his premise, not yours, and when you expanded on it you mentioned no difference between jamming civilians and jamming media. Of course I'm going to assume a blanket wide jam to all electronics if you don't mention conditionals to start, and mentioning such conditions after I point out the abusive nature of such is just wheeling the goals around.

Not to mention I don't see the point in jamming civilian stuff giving the mass media a stranglehold on information, media which has big business interests in mind and can be state controlled.

[Ryan Thunder]

The high definition, fast food munching politically unaware masses will not do anything unless their own lives are affected in one way or another. In order to do this, you must inconvenience them, sometimes greatly. Sometimes immensely. This is the mechanism behind strikes, which usually illegally delay cars but only for several minutes.

If a minority group wants something done and can't do it because they need more support, not actively trying to piss off the bloody majority groups *might* be a good start towards that goal.

Even then, some people get pissed off, the convenience types like Ryan who think the protestors are "abnormal."

This is because they are. I think pollution is a huge problem. A massive, deadly, crazy problem. Does this give me an urge to go careening around the city waving flimsy cardboard signs in people's faces?

No. I'm a rational person. I'll talk to people about it, like a rational person. Destroying their property or forcing them to sit for several minutes on the way to work accomplishes nothing. If they're anything like me, they'll be even less likely to consider my views.

Unless you intend to show me where I said that a total media blackout should be applied universally, then it's still a strawman of my argument.

I put forward the jamming of cellphones and the arrests of those who break the law as well their accomplices (which, in the case of groups seeking to deliberately provoke law enforcement, would also result in the seizure of any equipment carried by their accomplices) as a possible response to a riot, as both a way of disrupting the existing riot and to curb any future riots.

There is a threshold that distinguishes a protest and a riot, which would be the same threshold that law enforcement would need before employing such measures. By leaving news networks unrestricted, you still leave the 4th estate as a check against the potential for abuse.

I ask you again: what is the goal of this? To prevent media sensationalism? I counter with the pander to the stupid example: the stupid masses will not react to long term drawn out affairs. If it takes something extreme to get their attention, then so be it, if the cause is just. The longer you can keep the extreme actions going, the longer the public attention is focused.

No no no, you're getting it wrong. The motivation for proposing the jammers was the riot-inciting assholes who purposely provoke the police because they know they can get away with it thanks to the media.

That situation is simply unacceptable. Hence, jammers and what not. So the cops can charge in when they need to without fear of some tit with a cell-phone camera sending the (inevitable) worst of it to the CBC so they can cry "oppresion lol".

[brianeyci]

Why would you want the cops to charge in?

It is not always the minority dumb shit. At times, it can be the majority, and the power is not in their hands. This seems incomprehensible to you, but waiting four years sometimes is not an option. And politicians lie, and make promises they don't keep.

Tear gas not enough for you, boy? Water cannons not enough for you? Maybe you like the idea of many police charging like morons, smashing a lot of skulls with batons.

By the way, I like how the only person with experience living in extreme poverty, Stas Bush, is taking my side. And not yours. You are less likely to listen because you are a fucking moron: you're the kind of guy who would get angry at strikers who have legitimate complaints and slow down the economy because it doesn't affect YOU. Well, first they came for the rioters, then they came for the protestors... then they come for the crybabies... like you Ryan. Think about that.

Or maybe you don't even know where that comes from and it totally flew over your head, like many other things.

[Lancer]

That can only happen with organized movements which today are top-down and funded by political hacks. The irony of this is the more grassroots, the more legitimacy. However, the more grassroots, the more chance of random destruction. The problems faced by the Muslim youths in France are real. But without a top-down structure and leaders, if it's just a mob of very disgruntled people, there is nobody to issue orders and say, don't destroy this or don't destroy that.

Your American Revolutionary War example just destroys your own position. In the end they went against King and Country, raised an army, and caused great suffering and killed enemy soldiers. All over tax. There were obviously killings, and property destruction: it's why thousands of Tory fled the country to Canada. I don't necessarily agree with it all either, like you (I would have to look at it case by case), but the line is not so clear, is it?

The raising of an army and waging of war happened after legal venues for addressing colonial greivances had been exhausted. It wasn't a decision taken lightly, nor was it anywhere near the first course of action pursued. But according to you, the Whigs could have skipped straight to sticking it to those evil gov'ment types right away because they were being oppressed, right?

I will turn your pander to the stupid right around to you. The high definition, fast food munching politically unaware masses will not do anything unless their own lives are affected in one way or another. In order to do this, you must inconvenience them, sometimes greatly. Sometimes immensely. This is the mechanism behind strikes, which usually illegally delay cars but only for several minutes. Even then, some people get pissed off, the convenience types like Ryan who think the protestors are "abnormal."

Obviously some will act like Ryan, but some will go, hey why the fuck are these guys so pissed off, and find out more about them. It may spur others into political action. In this day and age it may give them time with the media, national media coverage.

A very important distinction between a strike and a roadblock is that striking workers will stand outside the road instead of blocking traffic. Hence, they are visible and draw attention to their cause, but they also do nothing to alienate the public.

You inconvienence a critical thinker, and he's likely to analyze why you're doing what you are. However, he's also much more likely to agree with your views if you present yourself reasonably, so that he doesn't see you as a menace to society.

You inconienence the politically unaware masses, and unless they were already poised to join your cause, they come to see you as the "them" in "us vs them".

I ask you again: what is the goal of this? To prevent media sensationalism? I counter with the pander to the stupid example: the stupid masses will not react to long term drawn out affairs. If it takes something extreme to get their attention, then so be it, if the cause is just. The longer you can keep the extreme actions going, the longer the public attention is focused.

If it takes something extreme, then so be it, if the cause is just? Exactly how extreme are we talking about? Is it "they insulted our favorite sky-pixie worship, we must cut off their heads in the name of the sky pixie!", because that's a lot like what you're sounding like right now.

With all the legal and/or least socially harmful ways of addressing greivances built into modern democracies, we jump straight to "We should try to kill [insert other group here] because we're feeling oppressed." How fast would society break down if it worked the way you wanted?

[Ryan Thunder]

Why would you want the cops to charge in?

I don't. It's just that sometimes there's a few little shits that ruin it for everybody.

If they want trouble, they should be on the receiving end of it.

It is not always the minority dumb shit. At times, it can be the majority, and the power is not in their hands. This seems incomprehensible to you, but waiting four years sometimes is not an option. And politicians lie, and make promises they don't keep.

Give me one concrete example of this happening in recent history, where the majority of the population took to the streets with the stated goal of pissing everyone else off until they'd listen.

The simple fact of the matter is that at this point they don't need to; more than enough people are perfectly aware of what the problem is.

Tear gas not enough for you, boy? Water cannons not enough for you? Maybe you like the idea of many police charging like morons, smashing a lot of skulls with batons.

Not particularly. I'm trying to create a situation where there's no motivation to incite a riot, so we can avoid precisely that.

By the way, I like how the only person with experience living in extreme poverty, Stas Bush, is taking my side. And not yours.

I love how you appeal to his authority on the matter.

You are less likely to listen because you are a fucking moron: you're the kind of guy who would get angry at strikers who have legitimate complaints and slow down the economy because it doesn't affect YOU.

Depends on their methods. If they're going to block a road for shits and giggles, yes, I'll get angry, and rightfully so.

Well, first they came for the rioters, then they came for the protestors... then they come for the crybabies... like you Ryan. Think about that.

Or maybe you don't even know where that comes from and it totally flew over your head, like many other things.

No, I don't know where it's from, but I could care less. Just another meaningless fear-mongering sound byte courtesy of some angsty tit with a pen.

[brianeyci]

The raising of an army and waging of war happened after legal venues for addressing colonial greivances had been exhausted. It wasn't a decision taken lightly, nor was it anywhere near the first course of action pursued. But according to you, the Whigs could have skipped straight to sticking it to those evil gov'ment types right away because they were being oppressed, right?

Sometimes, there are no legal venues. Racism is not just bad words: racism in this day and age, and discrimination in general, has more to do with being ignored and denied opportunities. For sure, they may have let in too many, but the Muslim youth were denied advancement by an outdated social structure.

If the question is timing, then the end result is the same: you admit that extreme measures are necessary, just not as soon.

A very important distinction between a strike and a roadblock is that striking workers will stand outside the road instead of blocking traffic. Hence, they are visible and draw attention to their cause, but they also do nothing to alienate the public.

Wrong. Strikers have been known to block critical roadways. Depending on the strike of course, and how militant it is. Protests too, force police to arbitrarily shut down huge arteries in the city. The police, highly trained, concede to protestors demands. If you say 100k guys are coming to the city, and it is credible, they will shut it down for you in democratic societies, if the protest is allowed.

You inconvienence a critical thinker, and he's likely to analyze why you're doing what you are. However, he's also much more likely to agree with your views if you present yourself reasonably, so that he doesn't see you as a menace to society.

Or he may think, like me, that you are doing something worth getting arrested over and possibly killed.

You inconienence the politically unaware masses, and unless they were already poised to join your cause, they come to see you as the "them" in "us vs them".

Or the masses are forced to listen to their demands, if their lives are to return to normal. You think people like Ryan will listen? They will not at all: I call him a liar. The only way to make people like him who look after number one first is seriously affect his life. You can tell because he wants to ban anything and everything that would inconvenience him in the slightest. If farmers block huge arteries into the city with hay, or factory workers who haven't been paid for months block government buildings, the government either listens or they resort to brutal tactics. The former usually happens, rather than the latter, because of independent media.

Now this is somehow bad? I don't think so.

If it takes something extreme, then so be it, if the cause is just? Exactly how extreme are we talking about? Is it "they insulted our favorite sky-pixie worship, we must cut off their heads in the name of the sky pixie!", because that's a lot like what you're sounding like right now.

With all the legal and/or least socially harmful ways of addressing greivances built into modern democracies, we jump straight to "We should try to kill [insert other group here] because we're feeling oppressed." How fast would society break down if it worked the way you wanted?

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how "just" is. It totally depends on the cause. You don't have to jump into the try and kill camp right away: who is strawmanning who? But you say that roadblocks, illegal action which is short of killing, is unnecessary. In fact, you say that all illegal action is unnecessary. You know, sometimes strikes themselves are completely illegal and the union decides to go on strike anyway and are fined thousands per member per day. You know your argument is weak when the only thing you appeal to is legalism.

[brianeyci]

Why would you want the cops to charge in?

I don't. It's just that sometimes there's a few little shits that ruin it for everybody.

If they want trouble, they should be on the receiving end of it.

Yes, they should be beat. You fool. I bet you thought the Kent State shootings was a great thing.

It is not always the minority dumb shit. At times, it can be the majority, and the power is not in their hands. This seems incomprehensible to you, but waiting four years sometimes is not an option. And politicians lie, and make promises they don't keep.

Give me one concrete example of this happening in recent history, where the majority of the population took to the streets with the stated goal of pissing everyone else off until they'd listen.

The simple fact of the matter is that at this point they don't need to; more than enough people are perfectly aware of what the problem is.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine dumbass. But of course I don't t think you'd follow politics.

Tear gas not enough for you, boy? Water cannons not enough for you? Maybe you like the idea of many police charging like morons, smashing a lot of skulls with batons.

Not particularly. I'm trying to create a situation where there's no motivation to incite a riot, so we can avoid precisely that.

Translation: ban protests and riots entirely, and create an atmosphere of fear like China where protestors and rioters are immediately arrested and killed. Maybe with a few Tiananmens those uppity retards won't get in my way.

What a dumbfuck you are.

By the way, I like how the only person with experience living in extreme poverty, Stas Bush, is taking my side. And not yours.

I love how you appeal to his authority on the matter.

Appeal to authority is appeal to irrelevant authority. He is here in this fucking thread, telling you that when you're poor, sometimes you have no options but the extreme because the stratification of society is so great those in power do not share your concerns. But you do not listen, like the fool you are.

You are less likely to listen because you are a fucking moron: you're the kind of guy who would get angry at strikers who have legitimate complaints and slow down the economy because it doesn't affect YOU.

Depends on their methods. If they're going to block a road for shits and giggles, yes, I'll get angry, and rightfully so.

Get angry all you want brain dead. You'd probably want them to go home and do nothing, and write tons of letters and vote. Well sometimes that option is exhausted. What part of that don't you understand?

Well, first they came for the rioters, then they came for the protestors... then they come for the crybabies... like you Ryan. Think about that.

Or maybe you don't even know where that comes from and it totally flew over your head, like many other things.

No, I don't know where it's from, but I could care less. Just another meaningless fear-mongering sound byte courtesy of some angsty tit with a pen.

Fear mongering eh.

It's dumb fucks like you that will allow the return of tyranny come. Police beatings and civil unjustice were not centuries or a millenia ago assfuck. What part of that don't you understand? Government abuse of powers is happening right now and you want to appeal to their mechanisms in all cases to resolve disputes?

Did you ever address the point that freedom of assembly is a human right and you advocated banning them? You never retracted that, so as far as I know you're still advocating that bullshit.

[K. A. Pital]

Polarization (in the way you seem to be using the term) only works if you can turn a majority of the population to your cause, something which will not happen if you happen to be attacking the very people you need to attract to your cause. It's far more likely that your actions end up destroying any unified political will to address your complaints by creating an "us vs them" mentality.

Even in an "us vs them" mentality, riots seriously drop the popularity of the current government. And you don't really need the total majority of the society, unless your goal is a total change of power. You only need the government to be damaged badly enough to follow your demands.

Quote the entire thing instead of picking out some choice phrases. I said that I wouldn't support a road blockade in a situation where a public rally or boycott would be appropriate. I don't know enough about Russia to comment on the legal avenues for submitting greivances, but blocking a major transportation artery shouldn't be the first course of action.

So you say a person in dire straits should first go out to some ridiculous "public rally" which is most likely to be ignored by the media, instead of using the straight and certain method of drawing immediate media attention? Wow. It doesn't really matter if it's Russia or not, but I doubt people of Palestine who had been brought earlier as a subject, are so fucking rich and well-off as to not use this avenue of attention-grabbing.

Bryan was twisting my stance that you should arrest the lawbreakers, their accomplices, sieze their equipment, and generally render their organization non-functional into "abusive total media blackout."

The attempt to arrest "accomplices" will lead to the attempt to lock up all protesters. This is not possible. Even authoritarian states nowadays do NOT do that. Jamming cellphones is abusive, and it is a form of blackout.

[Lancer]

Sometimes, there are no legal venues. Racism is not just bad words: racism in this day and age, and discrimination in general, has more to do with being ignored and denied opportunities. For sure, they may have let in too many, but the Muslim youth were denied advancement by an outdated social structure.

If the question is timing, then the end result is the same: you admit that extreme measures are necessary, just not as soon.

It's not just a matter of timing. It's a matter of having a legitimate greivance and exhausted all available legal avenues before even considering taking extreme actions. In a functioning democratic society, that point should never be reached because having legal avenues for airing your greivances is one of the cornerstones of democratic society.

Wrong. Strikers have been known to block critical roadways. Depending on the strike of course, and how militant it is. Protests too, force police to arbitrarily shut down huge arteries in the city. The police, highly trained, concede to protestors demands. If you say 100k guys are coming to the city, and it is credible, they will shut it down for you in democratic societies, if the protest is allowed.

I haven't heard any recent incidents of strikers in the US or other western nations blocking roadways, so I'm going to have to ask for references before I comment on that matter further.

As for the protests, yes, the police will usually "concede" to protestor demands, because it's part of the legal framework of society for having such complaints aired. The police need to balance the law, personal safety, and the impact on other citizens. However, by obtaining a permit, the protestors can take to the streets without recklessly endangering themselves and motorists, and the inconvenience experienced due to the redirection of traffic is nothing compared to the probable fatalities that would result if the same group of 100k guys were to spontaneously march through the Beltway during rush hour.

Or he may think, like me, that you are doing something worth getting arrested over and possibly killed.

Or the masses are forced to listen to their demands, if their lives are to return to normal. You think people like Ryan will listen? They will not at all: I call him a liar. The only way to make people like him who look after number one first is seriously affect his life. You can tell because he wants to ban anything and everything that would inconvenience him in the slightest. If farmers block huge arteries into the city with hay, or factory workers who haven't been paid for months block government buildings, the government either listens or they resort to brutal tactics. The former usually happens, rather than the latter, because of independent media.

Now this is somehow bad? I don't think so.

So, you do whatever it takes to get a captive audience, that way they're sure to listen to your complaints, legitimate or not? I don't think people like Ryan will listen if you take him hostage. You have to gain his sympathy, not make him howl for your blood. Yes, there will be the odd completely unsympathetic cold bastard out there, but unless your views are completely out of whack with the society-at-large, then you'll find less reckless or violent ways to reach out to those who are receptive.

Let's put this another way. There are two groups of "protesters". Group one is standing on the street corner, explaining their cause and asking for signatures for their petition. The other has just physically assaulted you, destroyed your vehicle, trashed and looted your home, and in general has done whatever they can to make it clear that they consider you the enemy while at the same time blaming "the system" to justify their actions.

I'm sure that group 2's reasons for taking to the streets will be the first thing on your mind as you're recovering in the hospital trying to sort through what's left of your life.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how "just" is. It totally depends on the cause. You don't have to jump into the try and kill camp right away: who is strawmanning who? But you say that roadblocks, illegal action which is short of killing, is unnecessary. In fact, you say that all illegal action is unnecessary. You know, sometimes strikes themselves are completely illegal and the union decides to go on strike anyway and are fined thousands per member per day. You know your argument is weak when the only thing you appeal to is legalism.

Are you or are you not advocating a "do whatever it takes" position?

I'll admit that the comparison to fanaticism is probably uncalled for, but the point remains that under existing democratic societies, there are existing and perfectly legal avenues for having your grievances addressed. This isn't an appeal to legalism, its one of the fundamental features of a democracy. Immediately acting in mindless violence as a response to any percieved or actual slight is unexcusable given the presence of a functional democratic framework.

[K. A. Pital]

Give me one concrete example of this happening in recent history, where the majority of the population took to the streets with the stated goal of pissing everyone else off until they'd listen.

The simple fact of the matter is that at this point they don't need to; more than enough people are perfectly aware of what the problem is.

Why wouldn't you shut the fuck up? Mass demonstrations and riots are very much being used as political change method in the Third and Second World. It wasn't long ago (1960s are recent enough) when riots were used in the First World to facilitate change as well.

You must go to China and try out a "no-strike, no-protest" life yourself. But apparently you haven't been there, and discuss possible authoritarianism without understanding it's implications, or having direct experience with living in such countries.

If they're going to block a road for shits and giggles, yes, I'll get angry, and rightfully so.

Who the fuck does that, idiot? People lock transport arteries when they need attention extremely. They don't do it for fun.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If a minority group wants something done and can't do it because they need more support, not actively trying to piss off the bloody majority groups *might* be a good start towards that goal.

This is because they are. I think pollution is a huge problem. A massive, deadly, crazy problem. Does this give me an urge to go careening around the city waving flimsy cardboard signs in people's faces?

No. I'm a rational person. I'll talk to people about it, like a rational person. Destroying their property or forcing them to sit for several minutes on the way to work accomplishes nothing. If they're anything like me, they'll be even less likely to consider my views.

Has it ever fucking occurred to you, that the so-called rational majority would most likely decide that it is rational to protect their interests rather than compromise with the grieved minority? For the French, keeping these Muslims destitute out of the job market means less competition for the lower end jobs and since these people do not contribute much to the vote, the French Government could quietly ignore them for DECADES?

Piss off the Majority? Oh sure, if the fucking majority is wrong, it jolly well be shamed for its inane stupidity. There is a fucking reason why idiot politicians get elected: Because majority are idiots.

You ought to live in a more authoritarian country for a change, where the problems of the minority are kept out of sight, and out of mind. Why? Because the majority would prefer having their heads stuck in the ground and going about their bloody business. That is the perfectly rational thing to do isn't it?

[Lancer]

Even in an "us vs them" mentality, riots seriously drop the popularity of the current government. And you don't really need the total majority of the society, unless your goal is a total change of power. You only need the government to be damaged badly enough to follow your demands.

You will need a majority of society to back you if you have any hopes of seriously addressing your grevances instead of getting a short-term fix (if that) at the expense of enormous political capital.

After all, look at how much the popularity of the US government dropped when some asshats from the middle-east decided to "damage the government" to try and force the US out of that region. That certainly worked out as planned, right? American society definitely became polarized, but not against the government. It took years of incompetence and cronyism from King George the Lesser to drag his approval ratings back down into the gutter.

So you say a person in dire straits should first go out to some ridiculous "public rally" which is most likely to be ignored by the media, instead of using the straight and certain method of drawing immediate media attention? Wow. It doesn't really matter if it's Russia or not, but I doubt people of Palestine who had been brought earlier as a subject, are so fucking rich and well-off as to not use this avenue of attention-grabbing.

Boycotts require you to be rich and well-off? I refer you to the Montgomery Bus Boycott. They were among the poorest and most disenfranchised people in the city, and yet they were able to succeed through nonviolent means, even when bullshit laws were drafted to stop them.

And again, I'm not familiar with the Russian legal system or media coverage, so I'll have to take your word that there aren't any legally available courses of action the farmers could have pursued when they first found out that they were being screwed over.

The attempt to arrest "accomplices" will lead to the attempt to lock up all protesters. This is not possible. Even authoritarian states nowadays do NOT do that. Jamming cellphones is abusive, and it is a form of blackout.

How will it lead to the attempt to arrest all protesters? You temporarily detain the people on the scene to identify them as suspects or witnesses, arrest the violent ones and charge them, let everybody else go, then run long-term surveilance on the known associates of the violent offenders. You could easily obtain a warrant to justify it if professional rioters operate anything close to how Bryan described.

A blackout is a total stoppage of media coverage. Jamming cell phones just prevents live communication over cellular networks in a localized region, so unless you want to explain to me how jamming cell phones will magically interfere with cameras or video equipment, or how it will even prevent the cell phone from saving video or pictures into onboard memory, it's not a blackout unless you are arbitrarily arresting everybody and seizing their equipment; something which you yourself said was not possible.

[K. A. Pital]

After all, look at how much the popularity of the US government dropped when some asshats from the middle-east decided to "damage the government" to try and force the US out of that region. That certainly worked out as planned, right?

Actually, yes it did. The Middle Eastern states almost universally hold a grudge against the US after it went on a wanton rampage through the region, attacking Iraq, bombing regions of Pakistan, etc.

American society definitely became polarized, but not against the government. It took years of incompetence and cronyism from King George the Lesser to drag his approval ratings back down into the gutter.

Without 9/11, Bush would have went in history just as another nobody, US popularity in the world would not have dropped, the Middle Eastern rampage called "Shock and Awe" in Iraq would not have happened, and the Middle East would not suddenly universally oppose the US.

Boycotts require you to be rich and well-off?

Boycotts, probably not. Running strikes and rallies for any prolonged period requires you to have material resources to lean back to.

You temporarily detain the people on the scene to identify them as suspects or witnesses

That will cause a shitstorm. And the more you detain, the more would the shitstorm be. Even now as police detaines 10-30 out of a 1000-strong rally, it causes a shitstorm pretty fast.

Jamming cell phones just prevents live communication over cellular networks in a localized region, so unless you want to explain to me how jamming cell phones will magically interfere with cameras or video equipment

It has the potential to prevent communications. Which means, a person can't call, say, a TV network and call it out for filming of rallies/riots.

[Lancer]

Actually, yes it did. The Middle Eastern states almost universally hold a grudge against the US after it went on a wanton rampage through the region, attacking Iraq, bombing regions of Pakistan, etc.

Without 9/11, Bush would have went in history just as another nobody, US popularity in the world would not have dropped, the Middle Eastern rampage called "Shock and Awe" in Iraq would not have happened, and the Middle East would not suddenly universally oppose the US.

The point remains, instead of prompting the US to pull out of the middle east, 9/11 actually resulted in an even greater US military presence within the region. Bush was practically given carte blanche to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan. His hard-on for invading Iraq regardless of the lack of justification couldn't possibly have been forseen, nor could anyone at the time have reasonably expected Bush to botch the handeling of the Iraq war so totally.

Boycotts, probably not. Running strikes and rallies for any prolonged period requires you to have material resources to lean back to.

And stopping work for any other reason, such as to set up a roadblock or riot in the streets, for prolonged periods won't require you to have material resources to lean back to?

That will cause a shitstorm. And the more you detain, the more would the shitstorm be. Even now as police detaines 10-30 out of a 1000-strong rally, it causes a shitstorm pretty fast.

It's already a part of procedure to identify and interview witnesses at the scene. Perhaps detain isn't the appropriate word, but I'm not introducing anything new, so why would doing the same thing that's been done suddenly result in a massively different outcome this time?

It has the potential to prevent communications. Which means, a person can't call, say, a TV network and call it out for filming of rallies/riots.

Right, because jamming employed as a response to a rally turned into a violent riot somehow propagates backwards through time and space to prevent that person from calling the news networks beforehand to inform them of the rally? Or will the media suddenly only respond if the situations turns violent?

[Ryan Thunder]

Why would you want the cops to charge in?

I don't. It's just that sometimes there's a few little shits that ruin it for everybody.

If they want trouble, they should be on the receiving end of it.

Yes, they should be beat. You fool. I bet you thought the Kent State shootings was a great thing.

As usual, nothing to see here.

It is not always the minority dumb shit. At times, it can be the majority, and the power is not in their hands. This seems incomprehensible to you, but waiting four years sometimes is not an option. And politicians lie, and make promises they don't keep.

Give me one concrete example of this happening in recent history, where the majority of the population took to the streets with the stated goal of pissing everyone else off until they'd listen.

The simple fact of the matter is that at this point they don't need to; more than enough people are perfectly aware of what the problem is.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine [...]

Alright, I'll give you that. At that point, however, the ruling party is pretty much trying to circumvent the system. I can see why large-scale demonstration could be justified.

Tear gas not enough for you, boy? Water cannons not enough for you? Maybe you like the idea of many police charging like morons, smashing a lot of skulls with batons.

Not particularly. I'm trying to create a situation where there's no motivation to incite a riot, so we can avoid precisely that.

Translation: ban protests and riots entirely, and create an atmosphere of fear like China where protestors and rioters are immediately arrested and killed. Maybe with a few Tiananmens those uppity retards won't get in my way.

What a dumbfuck you are.

Translation: I can't read, so I'll make shit up and hope nobody notices.

Idiot...

By the way, I like how the only person with experience living in extreme poverty, Stas Bush, is taking my side. And not yours.

I love how you appeal to his authority on the matter.

Appeal to authority is appeal to irrelevant authority. He is here in this fucking thread, telling you that when you're poor, sometimes you have no options but the extreme because the stratification of society is so great those in power do not share your concerns. But you do not listen, like the fool you are.

Shit, I forgot, we should trust the man on the internets because he never lies.

Hell, you accused me of being a liar without providing so much as a shred of evidence to support it, yet you expect us to trust buddy Stas.

Hypocrite.

You are less likely to listen because you are a fucking moron: you're the kind of guy who would get angry at strikers who have legitimate complaints and slow down the economy because it doesn't affect YOU.

Depends on their methods. If they're going to block a road for shits and giggles, yes, I'll get angry, and rightfully so.

Get angry all you want brain dead. You'd probably want them to go home and do nothing, and write tons of letters and vote. Well sometimes that option is exhausted. What part of that don't you understand?

The part where they decide that gives them the right to set my car on fire.

Well, first they came for the rioters, then they came for the protestors... then they come for the crybabies... like you Ryan. Think about that.

Or maybe you don't even know where that comes from and it totally flew over your head, like many other things.

No, I don't know where it's from, but I could care less. Just another meaningless fear-mongering sound byte courtesy of some angsty tit with a pen.

Fear mongering eh.

That's right, fear-mongering.

It's dumb fucks like you that will allow the return of tyranny come. Police beatings and civil unjustice were not centuries or a millenia ago assfuck. What part of that don't you understand? Government abuse of powers is happening right now and you want to appeal to their mechanisms in all cases to resolve disputes?

It's idiots like you that think that setting cars on fire and throwing molotovs at police officers is acceptable behavior.

Did you ever address the point that freedom of assembly is a human right and you advocated banning them? You never retracted that, so as far as I know you're still advocating that bullshit.

No. I didn't advocate banning freedom of assembly. I advocate banning assembly with intent to cause harm or harass.

Your right to assemble does not exceed my right to use the bloody road, nor my right to own a car, walk down a street without having to dodge thrown objects, etc.

[K. A. Pital]

His hard-on for invading Iraq regardless of the lack of justification couldn't possibly have been forseen, nor could anyone at the time have reasonably expected Bush to botch the handeling of the Iraq war so totally.

Really? I mean... he just went total nuts about it even by 2002.

And stopping work for any other reason, such as to set up a roadblock or riot in the streets, for prolonged periods won't require you to have material resources to lean back to?

I spoke of getting attention faster precisely because of the reason. An unnamed strike in Fuckuptistan Factory X will hardly get any attention for weeks (especially if the factory management makes deals to that effect). Workers of said factory blocking the Capital - Fuckuptistan Federal Highway would get reporters there almost immediately.

It's already a part of procedure to identify and interview witnesses at the scene.

The crowd is large, isn't it? 10-30 people are detained now and then, so? That is done now and so what difference are those "improvements" you propose?

Or will the media suddenly only respond if the situations turns violent?

Actually, such a scenario is not as impossible as you paint it. Rallies can be ignored or even blacked-out by the government already, so that only more violent behaviour gets through.