> With all that's happening the last few days, please don't associate Minnesotans with the riots that have captured the attention of everyone.
I understand what you're going for, but this is a bad approach. People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things, they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard. What you're saying here reads as "don't listen to them, they don't represent us" which is ... exactly the point.
We need to collectively shut the hell up for 5 minutes and just listen. Maybe if we actually did that, these riots wouldn't be happening.
He may be the poster boy of the chaos but I assure you, as someone who has been in these streets, he is not alone. Please, come join us and you can see for yourself.
There are countless innocent business owners who were ransacked, who were had their livelihoods changed that would beg to differ with you.
I understand the concept of being loud to be heard. I understand making a statement. I understand burning down the precinct.
What I don't understand is looting independent pharmacies, liquor stores, and restaurants to steal inventory and merchandize and break into safes.
Your tweet links to an unmasking of a police officer committing false-flag violence in order to justify counter-violence towards protestors and rioters.
People are rioting because they are angry. It happens that people are constantly, very gently, angry at the entire capitalist complex. When people riot, therefore they are going to burn down the capitalist complex, because it irritates them and they are in a provocative mood.
>Your tweet links to an unmasking of a police officer committing false-flag violence in order to justify counter-violence towards protestors and rioters.
Please link some proof or stop spreading this rumor on HN.
>White guy breaks windows and.. walks away? Holds an umbrella?
Is this evidence that he's a cop or just your imagination?
There's a very short list of what that person can be:
Either the video is fake or real. Let's pretend it's real.
Either the video is staged or not.
* if staged, then this is a person trying to spread the idea that there are agent provocateurs
* if not staged, then this is a real person that did this
If this is a real person that did this, then:
* they either did it of their own free will, or
* there is a group of people encouraging them to do it.
If they did it of their own free will, then either:
* they want to steal things
* they want to break things
* they want to get back at Autozone
* they want to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* they want to _start_ violence in the protest at that location
If they did it as part of a group effort, then they were either coerced or not; but, in both cases, the intention of the group that caused it is what matters:
* the group wanted someone to steal things / break things / get back at autozone
* the group wanted to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* the group wanted to _start_ violence in the protest at that location.
Then you need to look at the probabilities of each of these situations, especially the person themselves and their attire.
I think it's reasonable to conclude either:
* this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
* somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
* it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
Did I miss any combination?
2 of that final set are especially bad, in my opinion; and, they're sufficiently likely as to not rule them, out.
( edit: formatting )
edit: sorry, I did miss one:
* he's trying to cause an insurance claim for the autozone
> * this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
> * somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
> * it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
This is not reasonable at all.
2/3 options assume that this is an agent provocateur, which, again, no evidence has been produced to support, which was the entire point in the first place.
Again, someone please produce evidence that this person was a cop or agent provocateur, or stop posting this rumor.
"Current manchild of the hour" has been identified as a police officer in plain clothes in other threads...
There are a lot of provocateurs and I don't think we can align any of their motives with those of the protesters. Many are trying to create a justification for violence against the protesters. Some are just "break shit and get free stuff".
Source for that? It's possible but it looked like white as antifa black block kid. The style is literally the same what they do all around the world during the G20 etc. meetings.
Does rioting destroy things? Yes. But read that sentence from me again: "People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things".
People are rioting because they see this as the only way forward, not because they want a new TV. They may get that TV in the process, but it's not the motivation.
It’s is wildly racist that this comment, and many other comments on here, are far more focused on the rioters than the murder that occurred on a sidewalk in broad daylight.
Also racist is the indifference to these riots, when their cost falls on the same minorities they ostensibly are in protection of. Look at Detroit. Look at Newark. Any wealth that might have been accumulating in the black communities of Minneapolis has just evaporated.
>they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard.
This is almost the exact same phrase that MLK used, and it makes complete sense. If we use violence (implicit or explicit) to exclude people from "polite" discourse, they will find other ways to communicate.
> People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things, they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard.
That's not why people are looting liquor stores and target. Some people are just destroying things, there's always those groups of people in every riot. Sometimes people even travel to the riot just for the chance at destroying things.
I find it really sad that Target and other stores damaged in the protests may never return. Insurance and risk assessment may unfortunately decide reopening in a certain area is too dangerous.
Who knows, but the protests were noore violent than when white militiamen stormed the statehouse two weeks ago.. and yet the cops shot tear gas plastic bullets into the crowd anyway.
Police abuse of power and brutality happens every day and mainstream America doesn't bat an eye. But you burn down one Target... and all of a sudden everyone loses their minds!
Did blocking cafe counters work? Look outside: did it work??
My racism. Hahah. I love this tactic - no YOU'RE the racist cause uhh, oh, I know, low expectations!
What low expectations? I AGREE that it's great that people are burning down police stations and looting massive capitalist businesses. You're the one coming here with a twisted ethical system that somehow places property over people. And you call me racist, lol.
What I don't understand is why many of these small businesses — which have items of value to many people — were targeted. To me, that's burning to burn, damaging to damage, and looting to loot.
This is my home. I visit many of these businesses. I do business with two owners on that list. There are groups of people out here who, yes, are looting to loot and burning to burn.
I understand burning down the precinct though. I'm not upset about that.
We were promised change when a Minneapolis policeman killed a tourist three years ago. If the good citizens of Minneapolis has insisted that there be change, today there wouldn't be problems.
Is there a (real or perceived) class divide in the area? Just curious because I don't know, but I remember in prior riots some people explained that rioters felt like business owners were on a different level to residents and taking advantage of them in various ways like higher prices or not employing locals, so that helped paint them as targets.
To some extent, they were burned/looted/otherwise harmed because they were there. But on the other hand, you have things like this experimental Target whose whole purpose in that (very impoverished) neighborhood was to develop new LP techniques, aimed at putting more people of color in prison: https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505
Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them.
Target is complicit in racism for trying to stop people from stealing from them? Do you have any evidence that Target systematically lets white people steal from them while calling the cops on non-whites?
Would would you only try to stop somebody who is stealing from you if they were white? If so that would be quite racist! Trying to stop anybody regardless of their race from stealing from you is not racist.
Regardless, according to the tweet you posted the policy is targeting poor people not people of color. 40% of poor in the US are non-hispanic whites. That means this policy would presumably also be targeting a huge number of white people as well.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store that is poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground. Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty. And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
>"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
What other interpretation am I to draw? The person I was responded to said Target was intentionally creating new policies to put people of color in jail.
If anything the person I was responding to is the one that needs to take a more plausible explanation of what Target was doing.
>The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store meant to be deliberately poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground.
Stopping thieves is pro-customer. Stores have to mark up the price of the goods they sell to cover the losses from thieves. If less people stole then the price of goods would be less.
I also don't consider a thief to be a customer. Anti-thief is not necessarily anti-customer.
>Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty.
Completely unrelated to the topic of Target and possible racism.
Do you have a look on your door? That is a technology that is defending your wealth. Why not leave your front door wide open and let anybody come in and take anything they want?
I am guessing you dislike other people's wealth but are fine with your own.
>And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
The person I was responding to said "Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them." This seems pretty direct in the accusation that Target is guilty. If he doesn't think the blame is on Target then he would presumably have some level of sympathy for them.
If you can't avoid reflexively jumping on phrases long enough to see the parallels to a common sci-fi theme, then there's no conversation to be had. All I can say is that if you want conservative thought to remain relevant, try applying it where it can be useful. Hint: the breakdown in law and order here started with the police department itself.
>If you can't avoid reflexively jumping on phrases long enough to see the parallels to a common sci-fi theme, then there's no conversation to be had.
I have no clue what you are talking about. What sci-fi theme are you talking about?
>All I can say is that if you want conservative thought to remain relevant, try applying it where it can be useful.
Again I have no clue what you are talking about. I am not making a conservative point. I am just refuting the claim that Target is racist for arresting thieves.
Also seeing how I am being upvoted and you are being downvoted I am guessing my "conservative thoughts" are relevant to many people.
>Hint: the breakdown in law and order here started with the police department itself.
And? That has nothing to do with Target which is all we are talking about.
It also doesn't justify destroying other people's property.
I will admit that I had to re-read this argument. Are you suggesting that Target is racist, because it employs loss prevention tactics? I will admit that this is an odd conversation for me. In a sense, it feels almost as alien as a guy telling me that I owe him reperations by virtue of being in US.
Could you elaborate more? It is possible, I am not getting this.
> People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things
Tip: don't use absolutes. Always leave some margin. As long as there is one single person alive or that has ever lived that conflicts with your statement, that will be used as a counter-example and will be nitpicked to death and people will focus on that, instead of the main point.
If you say "most people", that immediately deflects those arguments. I've learned that the hard way.
Your words almost exactly echo Marilyn Manson’s commentary on the columbine shootings. Interesting parallel. He was asked what he would say to the shooters and he said “I wouldn’t say a single word to them. I’d listen to what they have to say. And that’s what no one did.”
I live a few blocks away from the location of the Floyd incident.
Attacking police officers (or really anyone, at all) shouldn't be encouraged, in my opinion. Ever.
Is an eye-for-an-eye the type of justice that's needed? I don't like it.
These are actual quotes:
"Fuck police, shoot the pigs!"
"Innocents are gonna die"
"This is just the start, you ready? You ready?"
"We're going to burn this fucker down"
"Kill the white folks! Kill whitey!"
Whatever. I've been labeled racist for not wanting to watch my city burn. Can't we have justice without violence?
Yes we can. In fact, this is the entire point of the police and criminal justice system - to reduce violence by providing a predictable and civil source of justice. Unfortunately yours has gone rogue, leading to the failed societal conditions you're experiencing.
That line of thinking is incentivizing violence as a means of "being heard". Whoever riots the loudest and strongest gets to speak and be listened to. No doubt the next step after listening is to compromise, aka "meet in the middle".
So the rioters are hurting their fellow innocents because it's easy and less risky than going after the guilty? You're probably right, but it's not a flattering view of the rioters.
I am talking about the potential for injury (as always exists with fires, looting, and the like, here exemplified by the wheelchair-bound woman sprayed with a fire extinguisher), as well as the property damage, which often causes stress and emotional injury.
It's also easy to forget that the people most harmed by looting are usually members of the (original) victims' own communities.
Attacking another user will get you banned here. The fact that emotions are so inflamed right now makes that more important, not less. I appreciate (having read your other comment) that you've been in a difficult situation, but taking it out on someone here is not an ok use of HN. It just damages this place as well, which doesn't help anyone or make anything better.
The factual correction in the second half of your comment would have made a fine contribution by itself. Indeed other users posted something corrections, without attacking anybody:
Do you think that telling someone to "shut up and listen for five minutes" is an effective way to communicate your message? How would you respond to such a lead-in?
But the police don't look like thugs and villains when they murder black men? Note this murder came off the heels of the protests at several state capital buildings where armed white males were in the faces of the police and shouting (images available on the internet). Not a single tear gas canister was fired. It's time for all of us to realize there's something sinister going on. The state is singling out a certain class of people for an extremely violent response. The point was driven home to me when I saw the CNN news crew get arrested. It's all on camera. It's all there now for the world to see. I'm afraid there's something really bad underfoot. We'd all better be paying attention.
It looks like this account is using HN primarily for ideological battle. Would you please not do that? It's explicitly against the site guidelines, because it destroys what HN is supposed to be for.
> disgusts the vast majority of law abiding people
Speak for yourself. I'm quite happy they burned down a police station. Let DAs and cops around America take note: going forward, if you don't act decisively when a cop murders a black person, you're probably gonna lose a police station.
It's just a damn shame the cops forced the people to go this far to get the message across. The police officer standing by that let the murder happen could have prevented it, the cops at the protests could have deescalated instead of firing tear gas into crowds of peaceful protesters. The cops did a GREAT job of descalation when white armed militia turned up at the Capitol two weeks back, they're clearly capable of it. And, the DA could have chosen to have the murderer arrested straight off.
You realize that radicals and those protesting are part of the "public", right? That their expression of grievances are part of "public opinion"?
As for the people who are disgusted? Nobody cares. They're apologists for state violence, and if after all this time they still don't understand why things are unfolding the way they are, they're only a roadblock to progress.
I understand what you're going for, but this is a bad approach. People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things, they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard. What you're saying here reads as "don't listen to them, they don't represent us" which is ... exactly the point.
We need to collectively shut the hell up for 5 minutes and just listen. Maybe if we actually did that, these riots wouldn't be happening.