|
site posted:Real talk: riots would be more acceptable if they didn't invariably destroy poo poo that wasn't involved with whatever the grievance is. Collateral damage happens with major political change including peaceful political change. People lose their jobs, their homes, their livelihoods. Not just politicians but plenty of people who are so many steps removed they might as well not be involved. Riots are no different.
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
on the left posted:Lynching is also a legitimate form of keeping order when police refuse to keep your neighborhood safe I agree, there needs to be more cop lynchings when they refuse to do their loving job  e: cops harassing/killing minorities over cigarettes, pocket knifes, or toy guns is in no way their loving job. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 05:47 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
the only legitimate action is rioting, all else is illegtimate
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
on the left posted:Lynching is also a legitimate form of keeping order when police refuse to keep your neighborhood safe Might be cool if the media would stop using newspeak like "youth" or "teens" so this could actually happen tyool 2015.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:the only legitimate action is rioting, all else is illegtimate 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
if they do, then those who have their homes and businesses destroyed have also an equal right of rioting against the original rioters because their rights to liberty and property have been oppressed. This can therefore retionalize an endless back and forth of rioting between those who have been oppreased by the previous groups actions. Tl;dr - the answer is no
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
towelieban posted:if they do, then those who have their homes and businesses destroyed have also an equal right of rioting against the original rioters because their rights to liberty and property have been oppressed. This can therefore retionalize an endless back and forth of rioting between those who have been oppreased by the previous groups actions. Sounds like you're advocating for the riot version of the Thunderdome. Two oppressed minorities enter. One minority leaves. The winner gets five minutes of infamy in the news from people who don't really give a poo poo about their plight and just want to boost their ratings. The loser is relegated to an area of the city with low income housing for the next fifty years. May the best rioter prevail. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:They are destructive, and harm not only innocent individuals and businesses that likely had no hand in causing the harm that led to the riots This is the key. The only thing illegitimate I can see about violent protest against violently oppressive structures is the collateral damage that protest in the form of a riot causes. This is the inevitable result of riots because they are disorganised. Directed, purposeful, organised 'rioting' is called warfare, which can absolutely be morally justified when waged by an oppressed class against their oppressor. Anger, hatred, and public disruption have historically been essential for positive change, but all of those things must be focused and targeted to be useful. Indiscriminate destruction and theft helps nobody.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Nonviolent protest campaigns are more effective than violent protest campaigns and are more likely to result in a regime change: http://rationalinsurgent.com/2013/11/04/my-talk-at-tedxboulder-civil-resistance-and-the-3-5-rule/ (I'm considering riots to be protests because it's a matter of labeling)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Nonviolent protest campaigns are more effective than violent protest campaigns and are more likely to result in a regime change: This is interesting as a historical study however there are several major problems that I'm seeing after looking over their methodology for a short while. First, they exclude coups as part of the violent campaigns which removes the violent campaigns with the greatest force available to them. They even include supposed coup d'etats that occur during a period of civil war which seems particularly absurd Second, it is impossible to separate the factors which cause a campaign to be violent or non-violent in the first place from their chances of success or failure. It seems entirely likely that the conditions that would lead the population to engage in armed revolt may in fact be more difficult to overcome than those that lead the population to engage in non-violent protest. Although they attempt to argue against a similar point to this by noting that non-violent campaigns have a higher success rate even in oppressive regimes this is not adequate as oppressive regimes include a large range of states. Third is a problem they admit themselves. That is, the tendency for non-violent campaigns to be more likely to be reported. They claim to be addressing this through their selection criteria but it is unclear to me that their attempts have done anything that improves this possibility. The most absurd example is that they only include campaigns which are confirmed to have over 1000 participants. For violent campaigns they choose to address this through a database that only includes conflicts with over 1000 battle deaths! A campaign could be much larger than 1000 people before 1000 people are killed as most armed conflicts don't end in the death of literally all of their participants. An additional point making this even more egregious is their focus on including those involved in "planning, recruiting, training, intelligence" for the nonviolent campaigns whereas their battle deaths criteria clearly ignores these figures for violent ones. This also calls into question their assertion that violent campaigns tend to involve a larger portion of the population due to the necessary invisibility of those supporting those involved in violent campaigns. Fourth, they define violent campaigns as those that involve "the use of force to physically harm or threaten to harm the opponent" but include as nonviolent campaigns those which have gained the support of the military. The defection of large aspects of the military clearly involve at least the threat of harm to the leadership. Fifth, The political and social realities of the world are changing ever faster and there is good reason to question the relevance of a good deal of the data. Although they say that the results become more significant in the past 50 years that is still an extremely long time in modern politics and necessarily will include resistances to the cold war which are more likely to be unsuccessful for obvious reasons. They actually note that there is a statistically significant relationship between location in the middle east and violent campaigns as well which will of course further effect the general results. The political world today is vastly different from the political world in 1965 or even in 1980 and it is very unclear that there is reason to assume that the same tactics will be effective. Sixth, events leading to insurrection, violent and non-violent, often have unique elements. Their data shows nothing about whether a failed violent campaign would have been effective were it non-violent or that a failed non-violent campaign would have been effective had it been violent. Finally as perhaps the most relevant aspect to this thread, they don't include riots at all in their calculations as they have chosen to examine campaigns which "have discernable leadership and often have names, distinguishing them from random riots or spontaneous mass acts" Although their data is certainly interesting historically I don't feel that it really has any use whatsoever in predicting the efficacy of violent vs non-violent resistance today, particularly in individual cases.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Nonviolent protest campaigns are more effective than violent protest campaigns and are more likely to result in a regime change: this disagrees quote:"Empirical tests of the mass insurgency thesis [of welfare expansion] have generally followed one of two research strategies. First, several studies have used time-series analysis to examine variation in national (aggregate) measures of United States welfare programs such as AFDC recipient levels, expenditures, or benefit levels, usually spanning the postwar years through the late 1970s... The test of the effect of insurgency in this case is conducted by testing the null hypothesis that the number of riots, usually lagged one or two years, does not affect welfare once relevant control variables are included. Each of these studies has easily rejected the null hypothesis, finding insurgency to be positively and significantly related to welfare expansion...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Riots are indiscriminate and usually hurt innocent people and the rioters themselves, communicate nothing but frustration and in so doing breed it in the opposition, are great at confirming prejudices, usually precede the complete exhaustion of better alternatives, polarize and entrench both the oppressed and oppressors even further. Most violent revolutions usually replace bad with worse.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Riots should be treated as symptoms of the underlying problem instead of a tactic to encourage change. Mostly because it's pretty easy to dismiss disorganized mayhem instead of an organized threat to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Riots should be treated as symptoms of the underlying problem instead of a tactic to encourage change. Mostly because it's pretty easy to dismiss disorganized mayhem instead of an organized threat to the status quo. Pretty much this. Rioting in itself just makes the supposed cause look dumb and so goddamn crazy. The better effect is getting people to ask why the conditions were such that it occurred in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:words it's a tedx talk (aka the
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 09:06
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:it's a tedx talk (aka the It's actually both a published paper and a book which was why I bothered going through it at all since I was curious how it was done and had time to kill waiting for dinner. I didn't actually even watch the talk. If people missed it the link to the actual methodology document is given in footnote 4: http://www.ericachenoweth.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/WCRWAppendix-1.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
Pretty much every successful social change in the world has been backed up with violence as part of the tactics. It's pretty standard, you offer a peaceful option and a non-peaceful alternative. Most people would opt for the peaceful one. Even Gandhi, the poster boy of "non violence is the only thing that works" was only part of the story, and he even encouraged people to resort to violence rather than submit. The quit india movement, the indian navy mutinies, even the indian national army itself being involved in a standard military conflict. All of these contributed hugely to Indian independence. Gandhi and his own personal philosophy of non-violence is often fetishized as the way forward.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Pegged Lamb posted:communicate nothing but frustration and in so doing breed it in the opposition, are great at confirming prejudices, usually precede the complete exhaustion of better alternatives, polarize and entrench both the oppressed and oppressors even further. agreed that people who don't want to listen to the rioters' demands were finding other excuses to not listen before the riot and then blaming the rioters anyway
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
The only legitimate form of protest is mass suicide or self immolation. It's something that is unignorable and sends a very clear message.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:The only legitimate form of protest is mass suicide or self immolation. You first.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:The only legitimate form of protest is mass suicide or self immolation. It's pretty easy to ignore that your opponents are now dead, unless you mean unignorable in the sense that entrenched power has even more room to act.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
joeburz posted:It's pretty easy to ignore that your opponents are now dead, unless you mean unignorable in the sense that entrenched power has even more room to act. I think they're referring to the inevitable smell.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:It's actually both a published paper and a book which was why I bothered going through it at all since I was curious how it was done and had time to kill waiting for dinner. I didn't actually even watch the talk. If people missed it the link to the actual methodology document is given in footnote 4: http://www.ericachenoweth.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/WCRWAppendix-1.pdf Thanks for posting these things (so I can be less wrong in the future).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
Riots are almost always triggered by the opposing police force when they confront mostly peaceful protestors with a militarized approach.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:24
|
|
