Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.
 

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/stat...88892471599104

I'm a loyal Democrat but I don't understand why some people on the left seem to think that this sort of thing is acceptable. Nor why local politicians like mayors would allow their cities to be destroyed like this.

This is obviously not a "peaceful protest". :mad:

It's not "political speech" it's a crime.

I don't think its ok. I don't think you're going to find many on the left that thinks it is ok. The problem is hooligans too often co-opt protests.

I don't know why people think of looting as political rather than opportunistic.

Also, peaceful protests can be illegal. That's how civil disobedience works. Looting is marred by an element of self-interest.

Why does the city government allow this? Where are the police? How on earth can Seattle be considering getting rid of half of its police force at a time like this?

Indeed they can be, but this doesn't seem to be an example of that. It's well over any line that can reasonably be defined as peaceful.

This is exactly why I still have a flip phone.

Actually it's both. A content populace wouldn't riot and loot.

Sometime the best way to fight a fire is just let it burn itself out.

I wish that they understood that this sort of thing helps Donald Trump.


At least, it seems to me that it does. Maybe swing voters will see the descent into chaos and blame the guy in charge.



As for the rioters themselves, I hope there was surveillance video and that the lawbreakers who can be identified are prosecuted. Unfortunately, the worst of the vandals, like the guy swinging the chair at the window, went to significant lengths to protect their anonymity, so catching them might be optimistic.

Great idea. Let's defund the fire department too. From now on, just let fires burn themselves out. Why fight a fire when you can just let the whole city burn to the ground.

This worries me too. I don't want four more years of that, but I see this more in terms of local politics. I don't live there but if I did, I could consider voting differently when it comes to the mayoral election.

I don't know if this affects how people think about the presidential race or congress, but I do think it would make me think about how to vote at the local level.


Most of them will probably get away with it I imagine, as I don't see police anywhere.

They sometimes do it because their local sports team won the championship. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "content", but it is certainly not discontent.

I haven't heard anyone call looting and rioting peaceful protest.

There is no excuse for the looting and vandalism. None. Those doing so are opportunistic criminals using BLM/George Floyd/police brutality as an excuse for their behavior. I'm all for the peaceful protests but the looters and vandals need to be held accountable for their crimes.

https://www.king5.com/article/news/l...d-286332f427f0

Local news story

Only 2 arrested? Who are these people? Antifa I assume?

More than likely and it angers me because they are undoing all the good the peaceful protesters have accomplished in bringing attention to BLM /police brutality. They are giving credence to Trump's claims and that really pisses me off.

They might not be Antifa. In the early days of the protests white-power extremists were arranging lootings and violence to ensure that protesting would be associated with crime.

My favorite is complaining about police intimidating people from filming them, then those same people violently intimidate anyone with a camera filming them.

One minute everyone screams "cameras up" and start chanting "the whole world is watching", next minute if you have a camera out, you're a disgusting traitor, a plant, working for the enemy, etc.

Do you know of any strong evidence for this?

Also, in some areas you already have gangs hitting stores like this. Either way, thugs taking advantage of civil unrest to loot stores and do things they otherwise wouldn't get away with isn't exactly uncommon.

Did you see the video? People were spray painting slogans on the walls. If you're there to steal, why stop to spray paint graffiti? I don't think mere theft was their main motive here. They wanted to make a statement against Amazon. I saw white girls holding up protest signs to block the view.

Besides the local news and more right-leaning news orgs, I don't see much coverage of this event.

I saw at least one Black Lives Matter protest sign carried by a person who then started smashing windows. At 6 seconds into the video you can see the sign.

In fact the video doesn't really show them stealing anything. Maybe they did, but it mostly appears to be smashing windows and spray painting graffiti

Nope. I was commenting on these phenomena in general.

If protesters are looting, burning cars, and vandalising property, that's obviously not okay.

Who said it's acceptable?

What does it being "not" acceptable entail?
Letting it proceed, or stopping it?

I think the OP implied that some people said it was acceptable.

Strangely enough, the cities that didn't take an iron fist approach to breaches of public order have been the most successful in keeping things peaceful.

Many major cities in the US had outbreaks of protests that turned into riots in the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd murder.

Now, only a select few are still having ongoing, if not escalating, bouts of public disorder and opportunistic looting. It should be noted that these cities have also seen some of the most robust police responses since day 1.

Doing nothing, or using a very light touch, is often the best tactic if the goal is reducing violence or property damage. Sending out the riot cops to gas and beat crowds practically guarantees continued unrest.

Portland has had 50+ days of continuous unrest in the streets. The cops are out in full force, using everything short of just opening fire with lethal weapons into the crowd. It's a real-time natural experiment in the effectiveness of jack-boot tactics to quell riots and is failing miserably.

Allowing it to proceed unchecked, when the means to quell it are available, is "accepting" it.

No, that's not what "acceptable" means.

what does not accepting it look like?

ac·cept·a·ble
/əkˈseptəb(ə)l/

1.
able to be agreed on; suitable.
"has tried to find a solution acceptable to everyone"
2.
able to be tolerated or allowed.
"pollution in the city had reached four times the acceptable level"

Here is the NYT arguing for a diversity of tactics:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/u...rge-floyd.html

"What emerges is not only an antiseptic image of individual activists, but an oversimplified division between “right” and “wrong” ways to protest that historians and social scientists say impedes understanding of how movements achieve their goals."

They say that “That’s not necessarily the same thing as condoning setting buildings on fire, but it’s certainly not the case that plain civility is something that would ever work.” Saying it's not necessarily the same things as condoning arson is pretty hedging language for the NYT.

"Social movements are almost always messy — and that’s part of what can make them effective, historians say."

"In terms of plain effectiveness, apart from moral and philosophical considerations, it is not always the case that peaceful protest helps a movement achieve its goals and violent protest hurts it."

"Most often, historians say, social movements succeed in the vast space between riots and “civility.”"

See definition (1)? It's entirely a matter of opinion.

Okay.
What does not finding it acceptable (able to be agreed upon, suitable) look like?

Saying that it's not acceptable. Conversely, finding it acceptable would entail people saying so.

Are we done with the English language classes? Shouldn't the OP demonstrate his claims instead?

I think the words used to describe things are important (I am not suggesting that you do not).
Allowing something to proceed unchecked is tacitly finding it acceptable, even if one proclaims that it is not. That was the thrust of my point- sorry if it seemed like an unwanted English language discussion.

I'm not saying your point was worthless, only that I think you're using too narrow a definition. I can find things completely unacceptable but do nothing about it. e.g. the massacre in Rwanda.

I feel this conversation is a personal victory even if I'm not part of it.

I hear you.
In order to not accept the Rwandan genocide, however, the means to stop it would need to be available to you.
Seattles' city government has those means. They are Democratically controlled. It is logical to say that they accepted the behavior.

You don't know if they have those means.

Consider my post edited to add "presumptively"

Then as a skeptic, I recommend you reject your own claim until you have evidence to support it.

Have they asked for federal assistance if they lack the means?