Youth riots in France

[K. A. Pital]

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.

Wait, you mean that never happens after being brought up an example just before your fucking nose? And that's just one - a huge business coudl abuse citizens just the same as a huge political party! And no party abuse, corporate abuse, lobbying, mass deprivations in the First World? You must be kidding. Elections in America where Bush was chosen, they didn't look really un-corrupt to me.

[Ryan Thunder]

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.

Wait, you mean that never happens after being brought up an example just before your fucking nose? And that's just one - a huge business coudl abuse citizens just the same as a huge political party! And no party abuse, corporate abuse, lobbying, mass deprivations in the First World? You must be kidding. Elections in America where Bush was chosen, they didn't look really un-corrupt to me.

Oh yes, we're all quite fooled over here. I wonder how long until people like you finally accept that the system is legitimately producing results you don't like?

[K. A. Pital]

I wonder how long until people like you finally accept that the system is legitimately producing results you don't like?

Just what the fuck are you? A "tyranny of the majority" advocate?

[Ryan Thunder]

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.

Wait, you mean that never happens after being brought up an example just before your fucking nose? And that's just one - a huge business coudl abuse citizens just the same as a huge political party!

In which case, rioting and destroying other citizens private property will accomplish absolutely shit all.

At the very least, target the abuser for fuck's sakes.

[Ryan Thunder]

I wonder how long until people like you finally accept that the system is legitimately producing results you don't like?

Just what the fuck are you? A "tyranny of the majority" advocate?

What would you be referring to? Democracy? Yeah, I guess.

[K. A. Pital]

At the very least, target the abuser for fuck's sakes.

Of course they should do so. And? You have admitted the principal allowance of such struggle; now, the fact that some idiots pick wrong targets or lash out at society in general, of course that should bring condemnation and law-appropriate reaction. So? You're just being pathetic.

Let me fucking remind you that you started with a "prohibit both protests and riots" claim.

Then you wound it down to "violent riots" and finally "violent riots can have their reasons, but at least attack the abuser".

Finally, fucker. Now, will you still claim you didn't say THAT:

I'd rather illegalize both, myself, however. Protests seem to be to be a sign of nothing more than insecurity; if their views were largely held enough to be worthy of consideration, they shouldn't need to demonstrate it to begin with.

You fucking goalpost-moving bitch.

[K. A. Pital]

What would you be referring to? Democracy? Yeah, I guess.

I didn't notice that democracy meant "majority fuck up minority any way they like", where "protest is just the sign of insecurity". You're a fucking authoritarian, moron, since the current will of the majority can be anything from "stopping violent riots" to "TORTURE THE ENEMIES". Fucking moron.

Protests, as well as the more extreme riots, can be a form of action by minority against an abusive majority, as well as a majority against an abusive minority.

But wait, majority can't abuse in Ryan's fucked up little mind! It's democracy! THIS IS SPARTA! Holy fuck...

[Ryan Thunder]

At the very least, target the abuser for fuck's sakes.

Of course they should do so. And? You have admitted the principal allowance of such struggle; now, the fact that some idiots pick wrong targets or lash out at society in general, of course that should bring condemnation and law-appropriate reaction. So? You're just being pathetic.

Let me fucking remind you that you started with a "prohibit both protests and riots" claim.

Then you wound it down to "violent riots" and finally "violent riots can have their reasons, but at least attack the abuser".

Finally, fucker. Now, will you still claim you didn't say THAT:

I'd rather illegalize both, myself, however. Protests seem to be to be a sign of nothing more than insecurity; if their views were largely held enough to be worthy of consideration, they shouldn't need to demonstrate it to begin with.

You fucking goalpost-moving bitch.

Incorrect. I did tone my views down a bit after thinking about it, however.

An outright ban of everything would be inappropriate. I'll readily concede that.

Attempting to provoke police into taking violent action against you so you can manufacture 'evidence' of oppression is simply unacceptable. That's what spawned this whole mess to begin with. I overreacted.

You've misinterpreted my statement regarding violent riots. I said there's no good reason for them. Should they occur, however, at the very least, leave me and the rest of the world that has nothing to do with your problems out of it.

[Ryan Thunder]

What would you be referring to? Democracy? Yeah, I guess.

I didn't notice that democracy meant "majority fuck up minority any way they like", where "protest is just the sign of insecurity". You're a fucking authoritarian, moron, since the current will of the majority can be anything from "stopping violent riots" to "TORTURE THE ENEMIES". Fucking moron.

Suit yourself. Let me know when you get people to believe that an oligarchy is a better solution.

Nobody said it was perfect, anyways.

Protests, as well as the more extreme riots, can be a form of action by minority against an abusive majority, as well as a majority against an abusive minority.

But wait, majority can't abuse in Ryan's fucked up little mind! It's democracy! THIS IS SPARTA! Holy fuck...

The 300 references don't make you look any smarter.

In any event, isn't Democracy defined as rule by the people? And don't we determine what the people want by the feelings of the majority?

What else can you use as a fair, impartial measure, anyways?

"The will of the people. (Unless this special interest group disagrees. But we'll ignore this other one over here because they're stupid. Oh that one's shiny! Pick their agenda!)"

[aerius]

In any event, isn't Democracy defined as rule by the people? And don't we determine what the people want by the feelings of the majority?

Here's a clue for you. Real world democracy doesn't work anything like textbook democracy, the real world version is a lot shittier.

[Ryan Thunder]

In any event, isn't Democracy defined as rule by the people? And don't we determine what the people want by the feelings of the majority?

Here's a clue for you. Real world democracy doesn't work anything like textbook democracy, the real world version is a lot shittier.

Alright, fine. Allow me to refine that statement; "And don't we attempt [...]"

[Illuminatus Primus]

I wonder how long until people like you finally accept that the system is legitimately producing results you don't like?

Just what the fuck are you? A "tyranny of the majority" advocate?

Yes, because the Bush/Gore election was constitutionally evaluated and there were no irregularities. IF YOU STAND FOR TRUE MAJORITY RULE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE GORE OUGHT TO HAVE WON.

[Ryan Thunder]

I wonder how long until people like you finally accept that the system is legitimately producing results you don't like?

Just what the fuck are you? A "tyranny of the majority" advocate?

Yes, because the Bush/Gore election was constitutionally evaluated and there were no irregularities. IF YOU STAND FOR TRUE MAJORITY RULE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE GORE OUGHT TO HAVE WON.

They have to express this desire by actually voting in order for this to work, for course. If Gore lost because a chunk of his 'majority' support chose to abstain from the vote, it's their own bloody fault, not the system's.

Rather, by choosing not to vote (assuming they had the capacity), they've expressed their support for the result, if unintentionally.

[Siege]

I'm sorry, wasn't it so that Gore actually garnered more actual votes, but because of they way they are tallied on a state-by-state basis (or somesuch) Bush still went home with the election in the bag?

I could be misremembering of course...

[Androsphinx]

Just what the fuck are you? A "tyranny of the majority" advocate?

Yes, because the Bush/Gore election was constitutionally evaluated and there were no irregularities. IF YOU STAND FOR TRUE MAJORITY RULE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE GORE OUGHT TO HAVE WON.

They have to express this desire by actually voting in order for this to work, for course. If Gore lost because a chunk of his 'majority' support chose to abstain from the vote, it's their own bloody fault, not the system's.

Rather, by choosing not to vote (assuming they had the capacity), they've expressed their support for the result, if unintentionally.

I think he's talking about Gore winning the popular vote, but not enough seats in the electoral college.

[TheKwas]

In any event, isn't Democracy defined as rule by the people? And don't we determine what the people want by the feelings of the majority?

Are you really this fucking stupid?

First off, every modern democracy, and every country that signed onto the UN declaration of human rights, accepts a notion of 'rights' in one way or another. Just because the majority of whities thought that their schools would be better if black-free doesn't make segregation laws democratically justified. If we accept the premise that these French rioters have real problems (such as systemic racism, systemic discrimination, whatever), then it is quite possible that their problems take priority over what the majority wants, even in a democratic system.

Second off, do you actually think that the average government reflects the majority's view on the majority of issues? Are you this fucking divorced from reality? Can you actually name the last canadian government that had over 50% of the vote? Can you even name the last Ontario government that had a majority of votes? That's not even including the fact that the vast majority of policy introductions brought forth by governments are policies that were not included on any platform, and thus cannot be said to reflect the majority's position to any reliable extent.

Take your view of democracy back to Athens where it belongs.

[Lancer]

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

Yeah, and that was still most definitely after 9/11. Al Quaeda had no way of knowing, when they planned the 9/11 attacks, that all the domestic and international support and sympathy generated overnight would be squandered by Bush & co.

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.

Pretty much this entire time, I've been debating within the constraint of a democratic society with preexisting systems for collecting and dealing with the greivances of the people in a legal and civil manner which any would-be rioters could and should have pursued. From my previously given statements (most notably, the US Revolutionary War), you should know that I do feel that under different social conditions, other courses of action may be appropriate. To recap, rioting when the system you're in offers a range of effective legal and nondestructive means of addressing greivances isn't warranted.

Also, Fuckupistan sounds to be an authoritarian regime with little regard for human rights or rule of law, yet they still allow the independent press to operate? If protestors turn to road blockades, then what prevents Fuckupistan from using propaganda to smear the factory workers before forcibly dislodging those protestors with the Grand Army of Fuckupistan?

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?

I didn't actually propose any improvements there. I just gave a sparknotes version of existing procedure as a counterexample for your claim that the government would try to lock up all protestors.

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.

The last time I checked, in a democratic society government != media. The media can't be forced to ignore you (though they certainly can choose to do so of their own accord, as is their prerogative).

[K. A. Pital]

Al Quaeda had no way of knowing, when they planned the 9/11 attacks, that all the domestic and international support and sympathy generated overnight would be squandered by Bush & co.

I said they were targeting the Middle Eastern society, not the US society, sorry. Did you not fucking see people in Palestine celebrating 9/11? Did that just fly over your head? Al-Quaeda's target audience saw what they needed to see, what they support - successful jihadi attack against the US.

Pretty much this entire time, I've been debating within the constraint of a democratic society with preexisting systems for collecting and dealing with the greivances of the people in a legal and civil manner which any would-be rioters could and should have pursued.

Democratic societies can be fucked up, corrupt and painfully neglient all seven ways up to heaven. They can have mass poverty and human rights abuse. You meant to say "a rich First-World country", not just a democratic society.

Also, Fuckupistan sounds to be an authoritarian regime with little regard for human rights or rule of law, yet they still allow the independent press to operate?

Fuckupistan is just a corrupt government. And yes, there's press attention to human rights abuse even in authoritarian countries. In fact, it sometimes brings results for the protesters. Hell, I live in such a country and I consider it the right course of action.

I didn't actually propose any improvements there.

If you did not, what's the point of this? In what way the French police is acting wrong? I'm sure they have arrested several people by now.

The last time I checked, in a democratic society government != media. The media can't be forced to ignore you (though they certainly can choose to do so of their own accord, as is their prerogative).

Media is ruled by corporations, which can ignore you, paint you as a loon, or do all other wonderful sorts of things. A society needn't be authoritarian, just thorougly corrupt, for this to happen.

[K. A. Pital]

In any event, isn't Democracy defined as rule by the people? And don't we determine what the people want by the feelings of the majority?

You mean like Bush's petty little crusade is supported by the majority ... not. But, America is a democratic first-world country! Oh god! What have I done, shattered the little one's illusions.

And actually to answer your question: fuck no. There are civil rights which are not a product of majority rule - a true majority rule would perhaps wish to have cretinism in schools, separate "dirty niggaz" from whites and do other types of wonderful majority rule things, which are irrational, cruel and even inhuman.

Your majority rule however wondefully manifested in Palestine where HAMAS was chosen. Do NOT ever confuse majority rule with the cause of civil rights, human rights and humanism, since they're different things.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Pretty much this entire time, I've been debating within the constraint of a democratic society with preexisting systems for collecting and dealing with the greivances of the people in a legal and civil manner which any would-be rioters could and should have pursued. From my previously given statements (most notably, the US Revolutionary War), you should know that I do feel that under different social conditions, other courses of action may be appropriate. To recap, rioting when the system you're in offers a range of effective legal and nondestructive means of addressing greivances isn't warranted.

Oh really? Just so you don't know, the existence of so-called legal and nondestructive means requires that one has money to pursue these avenues. Further, it assumes the so-called legal means would bother to cater to their demands. It might be effective for one social group, but certainly not for all social groups.

If there's one thing I have noticed, anti-disorder people prefer to sit on fences and let someone else do the job for them, so long as it does not compromise their interests. It is precisely this that it took the United States decades to finally grant civil rights to the blacks.

[Norseman]

I think I should chime in here and point out the obvious: You can argue about what should be done, what's acceptable in the abstract, and whether or not there's some justification for the riots. None of that is very relevant since the French government cannot take firm action against the rioters, they certainly cannot use lethal force.

Note that when I say "cannot" I don't mean that it's physically impossible. Certainly it would be possible for Sarcozy to find a group of men who would open fire on the rioters, certainly it's possible to launch massive raid on the ghettoes. However such an act would be political suicide for reasons I'll explain further down.

In the same sense when someone says that the French "have to" take firm action against the rioters the answer is no, French don't have to to anything. There's any number of things people want them to do, there are things that would be prudent to do, but they don't really have to do anything.

The truth is that at this time the riots are a minor problem; they only affect a small part of the country, a part very few people care about. The riots don't really threaten the economy or the national interests of France. Most people would only know about the riots from the news, indeed you can be a mile away from the riots and be perfectly safe. So its perfectly feasible to ignore them, contain them, and appease the rioters.

Consider then what would happen in the aftermath of a brutal crackdown:

* The man responsible would have his career ruined.
* There'd be a massive press uproar about the brutality and violence.
* The muslim community would complain of racism.
* There'd be a Public Day of Mourning or some such as the "poor victims of the day of bloodshed" (e.g. dead rioters) are burried. Lots of weeping families.
* The next French leader would be pushed into repudiating the actions of his predecessor, and make more concessions to the Muslim community.

I mean why do you think they're shooting at the police? They want a brutal reaction because they know that if there is one they can get rid of Sarcozy and gain concessions.

Only if the political situation changes, so that a hardliner has massive public support, and is able to completely ignore the press and foreign pressure... Only then can you see any real crackdowns. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not that would be a good thing.

[Ryan Thunder]

Pretty much this entire time, I've been debating within the constraint of a democratic society with preexisting systems for collecting and dealing with the greivances of the people in a legal and civil manner which any would-be rioters could and should have pursued. From my previously given statements (most notably, the US Revolutionary War), you should know that I do feel that under different social conditions, other courses of action may be appropriate. To recap, rioting when the system you're in offers a range of effective legal and nondestructive means of addressing greivances isn't warranted.

Oh really? Just so you don't know, the existence of so-called legal and nondestructive means requires that one has money to pursue these avenues. Further, it assumes the so-called legal means would bother to cater to their demands. It might be effective for one social group, but certainly not for all social groups.

If there's one thing I have noticed, anti-disorder people prefer to sit on fences and let someone else do the job for them, so long as it does not compromise their interests. It is precisely this that it took the United States decades to finally grant civil rights to the blacks.

And of course, that totally grants them the inalienable human right to destroy my property at will.

Hey, its not like I deserved it anyways.

Idiots.

[Lancer]

I said they were targeting the Middle Eastern society, not the US society, sorry. Did you not fucking see people in Palestine celebrating 9/11? Did that just fly over your head? Al-Quaeda's target audience saw what they needed to see, what they support - successful jihadi attack against the US.

Yeah, I saw how they were celebrating. I also recall how popular opinion in the US at the time was we should bomb Afghanistan until it was flatter than Kansas. That didn't happen, but pretty much the rest of the world

Democratic societies can be fucked up, corrupt and painfully neglient all seven ways up to heaven. They can have mass poverty and human rights abuse. You meant to say "a rich First-World country", not just a democratic society.

Hey, guess what? First-world countries are historically defined as democratically governed countries. That means that for the most part, they are democratic societies. That doesn't mean that they are the be-all, end-all of modern democratic societies.

Fuckupistan is just a corrupt government. And yes, there's press attention to human rights abuse even in authoritarian countries. In fact, it sometimes brings results for the protesters. Hell, I live in such a country and I consider it the right course of action.

So, there's media coverage of human rights abuses, but later on in your argument, you go to say that the press are run by corrupt corporations which will ignore you if you try to peacefully protest and are abused.

From what I know of Russia, the government possesses nominally democratic features, but lacks the social and political infrastructure that's required to make it function as a democracy. You can't just have elections every once in a while and then claim to be a democracy, especially not if your political structure happens to make the ruling government a dictator in terms of social choice.

I didn't actually propose any improvements there.

If you did not, what's the point of this? In what way the French police is acting wrong? I'm sure they have arrested several people by now.[/quote]

They're not doing anything wrong, they contained the riots. However, I disagreed with Byran's assertion that the police should just sit back and do nothing because people might die if they intervene. When you get a violent crowd that's already in danger of causing deaths, or is close to doing so (again, inflicting property damage being a useful indicator), you do not let it run amok to do as it wishes.

Media is ruled by corporations, which can ignore you, paint you as a loon, or do all other wonderful sorts of things. A society needn't be authoritarian, just thorougly corrupt, for this to happen.

Why would a corporation allow it's media outlets to fall behind against it's rivals? The sort of corruption you're talking about would require it to be pervasively and hopelessly entrenched throughout all aspects of global society beyond what even the most pessimistic conspiracy theorists would admit is probable.

[Lancer]

God damnit, I botched that post...

My first clause should read:

Yeah, I saw how they were celebrating. I also recall how popular opinion in the US at the time was we should bomb Afghanistan until it was flatter than Kansas. That didn't happen, but pretty much the rest of the world doesn't matter in your model, so long as you reach your target audience.

Also, I fucked up one of the quote tags.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, I saw how they were celebrating. I also recall how popular opinion in the US at the time was we should bomb Afghanistan until it was flatter than Kansas. That didn't happen, but pretty much the rest of the world

The point is?

Hey, guess what? First-world countries are historically defined as democratically governed countries.

You mean many of them weren't dictatorial or colonial Empires just little less than a century ago.... NOOOO. But anyway, you said people in a "democratic society", ignoring the fact that some democratic societies may be so corrupt and stratified that they have ongoing civil wars on their territory. Moron. "Venues for protest" indeed.

That doesn't mean that they are the be-all, end-all of modern democratic societies.

I didn't say they were. I challenged your thesis that people in any democratic society do not have the right to protest in such a manner that disrupts order, including, yes, violent protest.

So, there's media coverage of human rights abuses, but later on in your argument, you go to say that the press are run by corrupt corporations which will ignore you if you try to peacefully protest and are abused.

Because, stupid fuck, I know what I'm speaking about and you don't. When some Chelyabinsk factory workers go on strike, that doesn't get immediate news attention. Oftentimes it's ignored. However, if the block the federal highway, the press arrives immediately, finding out such wonderful little details as "they haven't been paid for half a year" and that "the CEO has left for a vacation and does not return calls". Moron.

If you run a protest in front of the local governorshp office, you're likely to be ignored, and possibly detained by the police (may or may not include beating), but if you block a federal highway, newsmen from another city may arrive and suddenly your beaten face is on CHANNEL ONE, federal news, and the local government officials are in deep shit.

You can't just have elections every once in a while and then claim to be a democracy, especially not if your political structure happens to make the ruling government a dictator in terms of social choice.

Russia is an almost perfect example of a tyranny of the complacent majority. The majority does indeed support this "dictatorship of social choice", sadly.

However, I disagreed with Byran's assertion that the police should just sit back and do nothing because people might die if they intervene.

It shouldn't sit back, but it shouldn't FIRE on rioteers either, which is, IIRC, what Brian was protesting against, isn't it?

Why would a corporation allow it's media outlets to fall behind against it's rivals?

Why would it care for workers of Factory X just striking? Now, a closed federal highway, that's a lot more important. You'd need a bigger bribe to stop it's cover by a central news channel or something

The sort of corruption you're talking about would require it to be pervasively and hopelessly entrenched throughout all aspects of global society beyond what even the most pessimistic conspiracy theorists would admit is probable.

Really? Well, sorry, but it's real. Lesser protest actions are routinely ignored while a disruption of civil life gets lots of information and investigation immediately