First Trump came for Portland

[ironbite]

Hey not to poke holes in Vanto's "argument" but Portland last night saw the Feds and the PPB all vamoose out the area.  And nobody burned anything, no windows were smashed, hell, there was no rioting.  Weird right?

Ironbite-almost as if the cops were the ones who had the problem with a peaceful protest.

[RavynousHunter]

Some folks need to be forced to live a few years in the 'hood on a normal, "just barely able to stay alive" salary and benefits.  Yeah, that includes bills.  Then, the whinging cunts can realize how little the pigs actually fucking care when you hear gunshots for the third time that week and they stopped responding to your calls.  They can see how someone can be knifed in the stomach in broad fucking daylight with multiple witnesses, only to have the only reason the Johnny-come-lately pigs find the culprit is because they decided to hide in a nearby alleyway like a fucking idiot.  For extra special fun, they can watch as the pigs beat an innocent black man to death because he looked the wrong way at 'em.  Ooh, or have the brother of one of their friends wrongly sent to prison for life for killing someone in self defense while black.

All real things, all things that happened during my stint in the 'hood.

Maybe, just fucking maybe, then they'd under-fucking-stand why some people would want to watch the nearest police precinct go up in a giant nuclear inferno.  As someone so eloquently put it: they're lucky black people are looking for equality and not revenge.

[dpareja]

It's projection. White conservatives ground black people (or LGBT people, or Hispanic people, or whatever group) under their bootheel for so long that they can't think that, if the roles were reversed, they'd want to do anything but take revenge.

I once read some of the speeches of Albert Gallatin Brown. It's pretty clear from his stuff that the general view of white Southerners pre-Civil War was that if slavery were ended, whites would become second-class citizens in the South.

[RavynousHunter]

Another thing that came to mind that really bugs the fuck outta me is that I've seen it time and again framed as a problem for black people.  No, I'm not talking about the David Duke-style canard of "if they could behave like civilized humans," et cetera.  I'm talking about how even relatively normal motherfuckers phrase it.  "Racism against black people."  Not "the racism of white people," no.  Because that would mean accepting responsibility for the problem, and we can't possibly be the problem, we're white.

Thing is, though, racism is a white problem.  Its not incumbent on black people to change our perceptions of them, it is up to white people to actually change shit.  This society is made by, of, and explicitly for the advancement of white cunts like myself.  It is designed that way and has been since long before this country even fuckin' existed.  Its white people and our perceptions that have to change.  We have to manage ourselves, fuckin' police our shit because there's nobody else that can do it.  Nobody else in this fucked up country has the power and clout to accomplish it.  Until white fuckers change, this shit's gonna keep going on and on.  We have to accept responsibility for our fuckups, up to and including the David Dukes and Rooshes V of the world, and fucking do something about it.  Not this namby-pamby "oh, he's such a bad guy" patronizing bullshit where we just try to push these kinds of people under the rug.  If they cannot be made to change, they need to at least be put in a position where they can influence no one, or as close as we can get.

White people need to fucking police themselves.  We've run roughshod over the world fuckin' long enough.

[DarkPhoenix]

1. I did answer your question. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't make it "deflection" or "downplaying" or whatever.

NO YOU FUCKING DIDN'T.  The question is, if the rioters have been working to burn the city of Portland down for the last 50 days, as you and a bunch of the Trumpists and Bothsiderists keep insisting, how is there a fucking city left?  You didn't answer that fucking question, you tried to dodge away from the idea that all the protesters were rioters, which you've been repeatedly implying from MINUTE ONE.  For fuck's sake, CUT THE SHIT.

2. Oh really? Well, let's take a look at what the Nazis did in their first two years of power. In January 1933, Hitler becomes chancellor. In March of that year, the Reichstag passes the enabling act, granting Hitler plenary powers. The first concentration camps are opened. Persecution of political dissidents and known adversaries of the party begins. In July, all non-Nazi parties are formally outlawed, turning Germany into a one-party state. In late June and early July of 1934, they violently eliminate "dangerous" elements within the party and their remaining opponents, and take the opportunity to settle old scores while they're at it. And in August of that year, after Hindenburg's death, Hitler combines the positions of chancellor and president into one office, cementing the Nazi Party's power over Germany.

Because we all know the Nazi Party sprung fully formed out of the ether and didn't do ANYTHING before Adolf Hitler became Chancellor, right?

Oh, and here's the problem with Vanto's position on all this:

[SCarpelan]

Ah yes, whining about "muh bothsidesism" aka "don't you dare criticize MY tribe". Sometimes, both sides are entirely deserving of criticism. I have already condemned police brutality. Are you willing to condemn the rioting? Not even rioting in general, just this rioting?

You are equating attacking and killing people to property damage. Comparatively, I don't give a fuck about the latter. Defending cops is excusing much greater harm. Without rioting there would be much less press attention, political pressure and attention on the violent response by the cops; riots are something that happens when more peaceful means have failed and as the result the frustration and justified anger boils over.

Also, rioting != murder. Killing is only acceptable as a last resort when defending oneself or another person from immediate physical danger, no matter who does it.

You say that like the rioters haven't been killing people. I pointed out that at least 22 people so far have been killed either by rioters or by people taking advantage of the riots.

And you are objectively wrong. There was universal condemnation of what happened to George Floyd before these riots, and the cops responsible for his death are facing trial. These riots have accomplished nothing except hurting innocent people and ruining what could have been a bipartisan effort towards police accountability and reform.

How many people have to die in these riots before you condemn them?

Yes, you proved that some rioters kill people. So do some cops. I already very clearly condemned those rioters who did so. One of these groups is actively protecting its members from consequences of such actions and it is not the rioters. If rioting is comparable to murder then policing is, too, as is driving a car or shooting a gun.

I'm sure you have evidence that there was an effort to reform the police that was more than empty words to keep people calm. I'm also sure you can show that these efforts were stopped, not increased as the protests and riots grew. People have no reason to trust any promises officials give until they see action and the institutional power of the police is contained.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Very late to this discussion but, it's worth noting that some "rioters" aren't even protesters at all. This the oft cited justification that gets rehashed when police are filmed going over the top, as a foil to criminals who just want to get their crime on and looters who want to get their loot on. In a world where the function of police was primarily to prevent crime and keep citizens and property safe you'd think those guys would be the police's first priority.

It's noteworthy because this year there have been several, reported cases of police in the US ignoring criminals engaged in looting because they want to focus on whacking protesters and others of cops ignoring criminal behavior where their politics is in line with the police. In the case of Portland the criminal activity cited to justify the use of shady paramilitary stormtroopers was...wet paint on walls.

There's been 50 years of research leading to the conclusion that heavy handed police tactics leads to more aggressive protester behavior which you'd think would be exactly the outcome you don't want if your desire is to limit offending and threats to safety. Which all leads one to believe that the point of heavy handed policing of protests is not to prevent crime but to intimidate dissenters.

[RavynousHunter]

Which all leads one to believe that the point of heavy handed policing of protests is not to prevent crime but to intimidate dissenters.

Either that or giving them an excuse to use their power against other people.  Gotta remember that people in and with power will invariably want to use it on someone; that just how humans are.  Whether that's for good or ill, though, is up to the one using the power.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Which all leads one to believe that the point of heavy handed policing of protests is not to prevent crime but to intimidate dissenters.

Either that or giving them an excuse to use their power against other people.  Gotta remember that people in and with power will invariably want to use it on someone; that just how humans are.  Whether that's for good or ill, though, is up to the one using the power.

I'll grant you that, belting the bejeezus out of protesters probably gives a heck of a power rush.

Regardless, it ain't about preventing riots or looting.

[RavynousHunter]

Yup.  Never has been, never will be.

[DarkPhoenix]

Which all leads one to believe that the point of heavy handed policing of protests is not to prevent crime but to intimidate dissenters.

Either that or giving them an excuse to use their power against other people.  Gotta remember that people in and with power will invariably want to use it on someone; that just how humans are.  Whether that's for good or ill, though, is up to the one using the power.

The cops have fallen victim to the Hammer fallacy.  "When all you have is a hammer..."

They treat everything like it requires a full armed tactical response.  Of course they'd be fighting back against the protesters rather than the people actually committing crimes; both the aftermath of crimes being committed and the reaction to ham-handed force against them by protesters can be used by the cops to justify their violent responses...