Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

What a tired cliched argument. Such a victimizing attitude. If they want to help their situation they'd give the police no reason to suspect them thus when the police do shoot them there are no excuses and less grey area. You are using emotional reasoning.

What an abysmal standard to hold police, too. I'm not sure how what I'm saying reflects "emotional reasoning," but at least it reflects some type of reasoning instead of the nonsense you're babbling.

There's a difference between should and is, ideally we'd live in a world where we can all do what we want but that's not this world. If your goal is to not get shot by police don't act like a thug,

And who exactly are you or the police to dictate what is or isn't "thuggish" behaviour, and how exactly is that justifiable reason to shoot someone.

if you are a women who doesn't want to get raped don't wear provocative clothing alone outside at night in isolated areas,

Jesus Christ, not this #### again. Please show me a statistical or academic correlation between the amount of skin a woman shows and her chances of getting raped. If you can't find one, then please kindly STFU until you actually do some research and have a clue what you're talking about.

[AcGold]

You are too emotional to converse with and not thinking clearly. Read your words and mine, which one of us seems to be affected by emotion?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Show me the pictures of them looting and damaging property. Protesting doesn't count.

A few pages back in this thread there was a post about a white guy who set a cop car on fire or something during the riots. Frankly, I'm far too lazy to do your reading for you.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

You are too emotional to converse with and not thinking clearly

Quality rebuttal. You have a long history on this board of posting nonsense and refusing to back it up. At least you're consistent.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Really? Because I'm pretty sure those are all multi-racial riots.

Just because you opened the door to it:

[Acey]

No matter the actual demographic of people rioting in Vancouver, it wasn't racially motivated, so I don't think they can be directly compared. Rioting because a black kid was "murdered" by police is different than rioting over a hockey game.

[DiracSpike]

Can't we all just agree the rioting is a stupid practice carried out by degenerates and is unacceptable for any reason?
There's a reasons every third Simpsons episode involves a riot, whether it's over mark hammil at the bi-mon-sci-fi-con or the impending impact of a comet

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Can't we all just agree the rioting is a stupid practice carried out by degenerates and is unacceptable for any reason?
There's a reasons every third Simpsons episode involves a riot, whether it's over mark hammil at the bi-mon-sci-fi-con or the impending impact of a comet

I just wonder what the hell else people expect minorities to do? Work within the confines of a system that has number measures in place to ensure that no drastic change is achieved?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I just wonder what the hell else people expect minorities to do? Work within the confines of a system that has number measures in place to ensure that no drastic change is achieved?

Rioting doesn't really effect change in this day and age. I can't think of too many riots that do. Even the Riots in Russia in 1917 didn't really effect change, they were at best a catalyst to change.

All that happens is that the effected community destroys itself (businesses and homes that are completely innocent of the situation get destroyed).

People get arrested and get saddled with a criminal record or worse get injured or die in extreme cases.

The outside world looks on with little sympathy, and it puts a black mark on whatever is being protested.

Even if its successful the people that gain power are the most violent and don't serve the protest.

Violent protests have a far shorter shelf life and usually burn out fairly quickly.

I think its a poor excuse when you state that

I just wonder what the hell else people expect minorities to do? Work within the confines of a system that has number measures in place to ensure that no drastic change is achieved?

Peaceful and effective protest and lobbying has been a more effective change agent then violence with the exception of war.

MLK and Ghandi and others have effected more change for the betterment of all with words and without raising a fist in anger, then for example the Black Panthers.

You could argue that the last angry riot in the U.S. which was over the Rodney King trials didn't effect the desired changes system wide.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

MLK and Ghandi and others have effected more change for the betterment of all with words and without raising a fist in anger, then for example the Black Panthers.

A number of scholars have suggested Ghandi and MLK wouldn't have been as effective without the undercurrent of violence that ran parallel with their movements. I'll see if I can dig up the where I read this, but I'm pretty sure it's from a book I have back in Canada.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Quality rebuttal. You have a long history on this board of posting nonsense and refusing to back it up. At least you're consistent.

Actually I have no problem backing up what I say, but refuse to do so when the person requesting it is emotional and speaking in an aggressive tone. I see no reason to put any effort into truly conversing with someone if that person is not thinking rationally. If you want to selectively pick my posts to form a false assumption about me that's fine, I'll put you on ignore.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

A number of scholars have suggested Ghandi and MLK wouldn't have been as effective without the undercurrent of violence that ran parallel with their movements. I'll see if I can dig up the where I read this, but I'm pretty sure it's from a book I have back in Canada.

I'd be interested in reading those just to see the definition of the undercurrent of violence.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Actually I have no problem backing up what I say, but refuse to do so when the person requesting it is emotional and speaking in an aggressive tone. I see no reason to put any effort into truly conversing with someone if that person is not thinking rationally. If you want to selectively pick my posts to form a false assumption about me that's fine, I'll put you on ignore.

It's pretty damn arrogant to make assumptions about someone's emotional state during a debate, and even more arrogant to attempt to dictate the terms of the debate. It's also a complete cop out on your part.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

A number of scholars have suggested Ghandi and MLK wouldn't have been as effective without the undercurrent of violence that ran parallel with their movements. I'll see if I can dig up the where I read this, but I'm pretty sure it's from a book I have back in Canada.

It's probably not just in one book, but many, it's the accepted history of Indian independence.

By the middle of the second world war, Gandhi had fully embraced violent resistance and actually passed that lesson on to South African resistors like Nelson Mandela.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's probably not just in one book, but many, it's the accepted history of Indian independence.

By the middle of the second world war, Gandhi had fully embraced violent resistance and actually passed that lesson on to South African resistors like Nelson Mandela.

I get that.

But until these leaders renounced violence and took on a more peaceful approach they weren't nearly as effective.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'd be interested in reading those just to see the definition of the undercurrent of violence.

With MLK the parallel militants were clearly the Black Panthers. I can't remember the names of the groups in India at the moment. Another example however could be the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. I don't see anyway those changes are made without the threat of violence.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'd be interested in reading those just to see the definition of the undercurrent of violence.

Well, the "undercurrent of violence" during partition is not really difficult to identify (somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 deaths.)

It strikes me as an interesting (and entirely plausible) theory. Indeed, some organizations (like IRA) appear to have even adopted it (splitting themselves into illegitimate violent wings and legitimate non-violent wings). I suppose the "undercurrent of violence" creates the sort of pressure or crisis sometimes necessary to create a will for change, whereas the legitimate non-violent movement is able to credibly influence or direct that will for change.

[BlackArcher101]

I can't even tell what any of you arguing about anymore. Do you even know?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get that.

But until these leaders renounced violence and took on a more peaceful approach they weren't nearly as effective.

I don't think this is the case.

It is partially true, but not in the way you're suggesting I don't think.

Gandhi's acceptance of violence as necessary is the de facto instance where indian independence changed.

His non-violent approach was useful for creating a movement that could be openly accepted. I.e. if you were indian, you could support Gandhi openly because he wasn't actively subverting the Raj, but if he was actively supporting violent overthrow, you'd be sentencing yourself to the same fate he would have met, execution or imprisonment.

When they advocated for autonomous, nation wide violent resistance, THAT is when substantial change took place in India. It's the historical tipping point.

MLK is a different story because there is a much larger established history of violent rebellion prior to him coming onto the scene.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I just wonder what the hell else people expect minorities to do? Work within the confines of a system that has number measures in place to ensure that no drastic change is achieved?

I get that they feel wronged. There was a sense of inevitablity that this guy wouldn't face any time in jail, in fact I predicted it earlier in this thread, but not even having a trial must just pour salt in the wound to the family.
Being a minority and feeling wronged doesn't give you the right to destory your own town though. I was hoping most of the destruction was being carried out by anarchist opportunists until I saw that video of the step dad doing his best Anthony Anderson from "Harold and Kumar go to Whitecastle" impression. That shop owner was definitely a minority, I wonder if he feels more wronged by the police who investigated the robbery that started this whole sad chapter or the horde of rioters who trashed his store.
To me this case has more to do with Police getting confrontational and a general atmosphere of distrust in the USA brought on by prevalent gun ownership. Young men don't trust Police, Police dont trust young men, the police are always armed and the young men are sometimes armed. The main thing that got reported by the media was White Cop Black Kid when if the confrontation was almost any other combination of races the story wouldn't have gone national but the main cause still would have been the same.