Good luck, America

[jcnporter]

Again, as an observer from the UK, what I've seen over the past few years is that all of those people whose interests were broadly aligned with Trump (including most of the right wing politicians and media in the UK) enthusiastically agreed with most of the stuff he actually did and said and ultimately only had a problem with how he went about it, his language and how crass and embarrassing it all looked (from their point of view).
Again, those on the centre of the political spectrum were happy to limit their objections to angry media punditry because anything more risked letting someone like Bernie Sanders in, who they see as the real threat to their interests.
The only people actually pointing out that Trump was a potential fascist and authoritarian from the start were those on the left.

Here's a journalist, Robert Peston, who is not even remotely on the left, acknowledging it -

https://twitter.com/iammightor/status/1346980996504285185

[SamuraiDrifter]

I'm not American, but this thread is a pretty good take on the situation, on who is ultimately responsible for this, in my opinion -

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1347241551412428807

I think there's a clear parallel in the UK, where stoking resentments about class, cultural and racial issues has for years, if not decades, been used as a tool to bolster the Conservative vote and provide cover for a destructive neoliberal economic agenda.
What's even more unfortunate is that centrists and 'moderates' have, in many cases knowingly, gone along with it to maintain their status quo and attack the left, who they see as the real danger.

You're absolutely correct about that and well said.

I think Spike Cohen was pretty close to the mark when he said:

The reason for the protests and riots that are happening right now, is for reasons that are way more similar to why the Black Lives Matter protests and riots happened than either side is willing to admit.

At the core of these riots, at the core of why they voted for Trump in the first place, is frustration and fear over what they see around them: lost jobs, low wages, the cost of living skyrocketing out of control.

Simply put: people who are happy and comfortable don't riot.

The problem is that they're misplacing their anger and rage. They're currently rioting on behalf of someone who helped put them in the mess they're in.

This isn't about left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat, White vs. Black.
It's about the people vs. a relative handful of incredibly powerful politicians and cronies (including Trump and Biden) who rob us every day.

They rob us of our money, but they also rob us of our opportunities, of our livelihoods, of our future. As we've seen many times, sometimes they rob us of our lives.

Their actions fill us with rage, and they redirect our rage towards each other.

Remember in the 2000s when Occupy (anti big business) & the Tea Party (anti big govt) were fighting each other while big govt handed trillions of dollars to big business, created regulations to turn them into monopolies, and laughed at the rest of us?

That's happening right now.

We just got yet another "stimulus" bill where we got $600, crony corporations & big government agencies got trillions, & we got stuck with the bill for it, with interest.

This was passed in a broad bipartisan agreement. Pelosi, Harris, McConnell and Trump all had a part in it.
Republicrats want us divided. They want us to hate each other.

I think he oversimplifies things a little (obviously Trump has benefited from stoking racial hatred, meaning it is to some extent about "black and white,") but the point is there. The major parties are more the same than different and their real enemy is anyone who would challenge the neoliberal economic status quo.

[jcnporter]

I think he oversimplifies things a little (obviously Trump has benefited from stoking racial hatred, meaning it is to some extent about "black and white,") but the point is there. The major parties are more the same than different and their real enemy is anyone who would challenge the neoliberal economic status quo.

Yeah, and I think there's another aspect to this as well - lots of pundits commenting at the moment are very keen to pin this solely on Trump, painting him as a unique aberration in anotherwise relatively unblemished run of US Presidents - I mean, that's just bullshit, isn't it?

The one thing I would say is that for all its faults, the US media, at least the written side of it, is light years better than any of our media here in the UK, which at this point I think is near the worst in the world.

[SamuraiDrifter]

Yeah, and I think there's another aspect to this as well - lots of pundits commenting at the moment are very keen to pin this solely on Trump, painting him as a unique aberration in anotherwise relatively unblemished run of US Presidents - I mean, that's just bullshit, isn't it?

Yeah it's total bullshit. The political establishment wants nothing more than to go back to "normal" where the comfortable white liberals ignore the crimes the government and it's corporate benefactors commit on a daily basis, their drone strikes, war profiteering, screwing of the poor and working class, etc. They want us to believe that Trump was an abberation, not a logical progression.

Obama came right out and said this when he was campaigning for Biden: "If Biden and Harris win, you won't have to think about them every day."

And Biden actually made the ridiculous claim that Trump was "the first racist president."

Now when there are (justifiable) riots and uprisings over police brutality and state murder, over oil pipelines built through indigenous land, I have to wonder- how many liberals will fall in line when Biden tells people to "go home" and "be peaceful"? How many will defend him now that he's already backpedaling on his promise to undo Trump's immigration policies "on day one"?

[jcnporter]

Yeah, and I think there's another aspect to this as well - lots of pundits commenting at the moment are very keen to pin this solely on Trump, painting him as a unique aberration in anotherwise relatively unblemished run of US Presidents - I mean, that's just bullshit, isn't it?

Yeah it's total bullshit. The political establishment wants nothing more than to go back to "normal" where the comfortable white liberals ignore the crimes the government and it's corporate benefactors commit on a daily basis, their drone strikes, war profiteering, screwing of the poor and working class, etc. They want us to believe that Trump was an abberation, not a logical progression.

Obama came right out and said this when he was campaigning for Biden: "If Biden and Harris win, you won't have to think about them every day."

And Biden actually made the ridiculous claim that Trump was "the first racist president."

Now when there are (justifiable) riots and uprisings over police brutality and state murder, over oil pipelines built through indigenous land, I have to wonder- how many liberals will fall in line when Biden tells people to "go home" and "be peaceful"? How many will defend him now that he's already backpedaling on his promise to undo Trump's immigration policies "on day one"?

I can't stand the whole 'I can't wait to get back to normal' discourse from very comfortable media commentators - 'normal' is shit for millions of people and getting worse, which is basically the root cause of why we are where we are now.

[mechanismj]

jcnporter and SamuraiDrifter, I think you guys actually get it. Well said.

[arvy]

Ooh, nice comeback. I don't have time for a pointless debate with an obvious dingbat, so please take the hint. Go away. You and your moronic views are not welcome here.

Truth against sweat lie, dying like a free man or live like a slave, your actions in this life echoes in the eternity, you have all the power in your hands. But if you are a system titty sucker, you just a pig meal next life.

[bungler666]

Yeah, cause paying taxes so everyone can afford to go to the hospital is slavery.

Cunt.

[SamuraiDrifter]

Truth against sweat lie, dying like a free man or live like a slave, your actions in this life echoes in the eternity, you have all the power in your hands. But if you are a system titty sucker, you just a pig meal next life.

Funny how people like you talk about not wanting to "live like a slave" and then turn around and support the police and military, the forces of the state that beat and kill people to keep them in line, and wealthy elites like Trump who made billions off the backs of the common folk. Sounds to me like you're the one supporting slavery.

"The man who sent secret police to drag protesters off the street into black vans is such a man of the people and supporter of freedom!"

[Josh]

Let’s stop feeding the trolls.

[zeoevil]

I don't get how it's unacceptable to say he should be assassinated.

Because good men strive to live good lives where they don't have to resort to morally bankrupt actions to achieve their goals. If you stoop to the level of your enemy, then you are no better than him. I'm not okay with my government's actions over the years. Please don't assume I am.

You and your moronic views are not welcome here.

I don't think it is up to you to decide who is and isn't welcome here. As long as they don't break the rules, everyone should be welcome here. Disenfranchising people you are too lazy to try and reach does nobody any good. It would be nice to see the progressives to look on the mirror and take some responsibility for their part in why things are as bad as they are now.

Now tell us about how it was all caused by antifa infiltrators

I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole, but I'm wondering what you think of the photographic evidence linking multiple people who stormed the capital to Antifa riots over the summer. Actual pictures of actual people. The guy with the Viking horns? Photographed at multiple Antifa riots. The two guys standing next to him in that picture taken inside the capitol? Actual Antifa DC members on Antifa DC's website. Just curious. I'm not going to labor the point, but to assume there weren't agitators in the crowd is not a tenable position.

Yeah, cause paying taxes so everyone can afford to go to the hospital is slavery.

This and an education that benefits society are probably the only things that I agree with the progressives on at the moment. I'll happily contribute to your health if you are willing to look after yourself and take some responsibility for your health. Same goes for education. If it benefits society, then I'm all for it. But if you are going to smoke, drink, and eat fast food every day, then you're on your own. If you want to get a degree in some interpretive dance liberal arts bullshit that does nothing to better the lives of your fellow man, then you are on your own. And don't get me started on forgiving college debt. You signed those papers. You knew what you were getting into. We never should have privatized education in the first place. Reform? Yes. Debt forgiveness? No. I'm not paying for your mistakes.

So yeah, spare me the pearl-clutching about wishing harm on the fascist despot.

"We can't change the hearts and minds of our fellow human beings with words and deeds so let's just kill this guy we hate and make him a martyr because that won't make things way worse by an order of magnitude we can't possibly fathom or anything. Seems legit." This is you. This is how you sound.

"The man who sent secret police to drag protesters off the street into black vans is such a man of the people and supporter of freedom!"

I wasn't a fan of that either. However, when your city is burning to the ground and people are being hurt but the government of your city is refusing to even try to maintain law and order, something has to be done. Serious question. What would you have done?

Let’s stop feeding the trolls.

This.


Listen. Imagine we are all sitting around the campfire smoking a bowl and listening to some Old Tunes. Lets' talk. There are some goods points being made here and if we could all just come together without calling each other cunts or tools, then perhaps we could accomplish something. I read this whole thread and I'm digesting it right now. If you're gonna label me a right wing nutjob for this, then you are going to do yourself a disservice. I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm a issue voter. I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I was raised by a conservative biker father and a liberal hippy mother. I'm in a unique position to understand both sides of just about any issue. There are more people like me than you may realize. We'll listen to what you have to say, but won't be lectured or marginalized by people who are themselves unwilling to listen. I've done more good trying to reach my conservative friends than you can imagine. Curiously enough, they've been more willing to listen then any of my liberal friends. That seems counterintuitive given the beliefs they espouse, but here we are. I haven't been able to process that. Maybe one of you can help me with that. I'd really like to figure that out.

[zeoevil]

The one thing I would say is that for all its faults, the US media, at least the written side of it, is light years better than any of our media here in the UK, which at this point I think is near the worst in the world.

I've always wanted to ask one of you about that. From an outsider's perspective, it almost seems like your media actively hates you and wants to destroy you and wipe your history from memory. What the hell is that all about?

On a BBC-related note, it is such a shame Jody Whitaker had such shitty writing because she actually seemed to get the role of the Doctor. Same goes for Peter Capaldi. As an Old Who fan, I really like his callbacks to older, grumpier Doctors. To bad the writing was so bad.

What's even more unfortunate is that centrists and 'moderates' have, in many cases knowingly, gone along with it to maintain their status quo and attack the left, who they see as the real danger.

Based on my discussion with my conservative friends, I think I've found some of the impetus for this belief. To the average blue collar worker, when conservative are in power, their employers, assuming they are decent people, have been able to pay them more. When liberals are in power, they have less to pay them because they have to pay more to the government, in this case the liberals. So to them, the left is the real enemy because the left has historically made it more difficult for them to support themselves and their families.

While it is only my observation as someone who has worked in kitchens his whole life, this has mostly been true. Especially in the last four years. Take that for what you will.

[zeoevil]

I'm sure the family of the police officer beaten to death with a fire extinguisher...

I had no idea that happened. I had to look it up to get a grip on what happened. That's fucked up. I can only hope those responsible will be held accountable for their actions.

[SamuraiDrifter]

I wasn't a fan of that either. However, when your city is burning to the ground and people are being hurt but the government of your city is refusing to even try to maintain law and order, something has to be done. Serious question. What would you have done?

This is so beyond wrong I'm not even sure where to start, but I guess I'll start here: by "the city is refusing to even try to maintain law and order," do you mean the cities that sent massive amounts of heavily militarized police and National Guard to attack people before property damage even started? The ones who set off massive tear gas grenades spanning city blocks and unleashed rubber bullets against hurting, grieving people who had just seen a member of their community murdered in broad daylight?

Do you mean the cities whose police openly and violently escalated conflict with people rightfully protesting against open murder by thugs of the state when every other avenue had been taken from them?

Perhaps a society I was in charge in wouldn't normalize brutality and murder by armed state thugs to put people in prison for profit, but assuming I did end up in charge of such a twisted society, my response to that situation would not be to unleash secret, federal police with no oversight to terrorize people exercising their free speech.

[zeoevil]

I wasn't a fan of that either. However, when your city is burning to the ground and people are being hurt but the government of your city is refusing to even try to maintain law and order, something has to be done. Serious question. What would you have done?

This is so beyond wrong I'm not even sure where to start, but I guess I'll start here: by "the city is refusing to even try to maintain law and order," do you mean the cities that sent massive amounts of heavily militarized police and National Guard to attack people before property damage even started? The ones who set off massive tear gas grenades spanning city blocks and unleashed rubber bullets against hurting, grieving people who had just seen a member of their community murdered in broad daylight?

Do you mean the cities whose police openly and violently escalated conflict with people rightfully protesting against open murder by thugs of the state when every other avenue had been taken from them?

Perhaps a society I was in charge in wouldn't normalize brutality and murder by armed state thugs to put people in prison for profit, but assuming I did end up in charge of such a twisted society, my response to that situation would not be to unleash secret, federal police with no oversight to terrorize people exercising their free speech.

No. I didn't mean any of those things. I said I didn't like what happened and I meant it. I asked you how you would handle civil disobedience if it was your city being destroyed. Thank you for your answer. I think the thing we disagree about is that people should be held accountable for the laws they break even when they breaks those laws for something they believe in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but should people who caused damage to unrelated people and property be held accountable for their actions or not? If so, to what degree? And if not, why not?

This is good. Let's keep it going.

[SamuraiDrifter]

No. I didn't mean any of those things. I said I didn't like what happened and I meant it. I asked you how you would handle civil disobedience if it was your city being destroyed. Thank you for your answer. I think the thing we disagree about is that people should be held accountable for the laws they break even when they breaks those laws for something they believe in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but should people who caused damage to unrelated people and property be held accountable for their actions or not? If so, to what degree? And if not, why not?

This is good. Let's keep it going.

I live in a city where protests were occurring. I was very close to them. The inner-city residents of my area were overwhelmingly supportive of the protests because they're used to being terrorized by the police. We do not view cop cars as safe or comforting. When we see the police, we prepare to be harassed, everyone knows someone who's been beaten, killed, or arrested under bogus circumstances.

No, I don't think people should be held accountable for breaking laws solely as a result of the fact that they are laws. I don't believe there is any connection whatsoever between legality and morality. I believe that civil disobedience and destruction of corporate property are reasonable reactions to the present situation, where a huge number of people are without healthcare, where prisons are filled along heavily racially-biased lines for victimless crimes and prison populations used to manufacture cheap goods for vast profit, where the police can shoot and kill in the streets with impunity, and where politicians are openly bought and sold to perpetuate this state of affairs.

I do not think it is reasonable to ask people to stand idly by while their community members are locked away, beaten, robbed, and killed by a faceless, heartless system. I think that peoples' lives are infinitely more valuable than the merchandise in a Target. I don't support politicians of either lying, thieving party deploying armed thugs to keep us in line. I don't think this can be fixed by voting or working within the boundaries of the system. It's working exactly as intended and the laws were not made for us.

[zeoevil]

I live in a city where protests were occurring. I was very close to them. The inner-city residents of my area were overwhelmingly supportive of the protests because they're used to being terrorized by the police. We do not view cop cars as safe or comforting. When we see the police, we prepare to be harassed, everyone knows someone who's been beaten, killed, or arrested under bogus circumstances.

Okay. I can accept that. I've been harassed by police before. I know it isn't the same thing, but I can extend my understanding of my experience to accommodate and learn from your experiences. However, I have had more positive experiences with law enforcement than negative ones so the idea that all cops are bad and their livelihoods should be taken away from them is something I cannot rectify with my personal experience. There has to be somewhere between those two extremes that accounts for both of our experiences. Maybe we should find that spot and see if we can occupy it together.

No, I don't think people should be held accountable for breaking laws solely as a result of the fact that they are laws. I don't believe there is any connection whatsoever between legality and morality. I believe that civil disobedience and destruction of corporate property are reasonable reactions to the present situation, where a huge number of people are without healthcare, where prisons are filled along heavily racially-biased lines for victimless crimes and prison populations used to manufacture cheap goods for vast profit, where the police can shoot and kill in the streets with impunity, and where politicians are openly bought and sold to perpetuate this state of affairs.

I'm going to have to let this one stew a bit. We agree about the need for health care. So high five there. However, I don't believe there is such a thing as a victimless crime. Every action has consequences no matter how small. You might not be hurting anyone else, but you are probably hurting yourself. If I'm supposed to care about my fellow man, then how can I allow him to hurt himself? To what extent do I owe it to that person and society to help and what options should be available to me to do so? To me, the law is one such tool and I think it should be used to help people to not bring harm to themselves and other people. I'm going to think a bit before I address the rest of this section because I want this to be productive. We have some differing opinions of how and why people end up in jail and what should happen to them when they get there. I'm afraid we'll reach an impasse if I dig too deep here. I'll get back to you if you want. If not, I'll just leave this one be.

I do not think it is reasonable to ask people to stand idly by while their community members are locked away, beaten, robbed, and killed by a faceless, heartless system. I think that peoples' lives are infinitely more valuable than the merchandise in a Target. I don't support politicians of either lying, thieving party deploying armed thugs to keep us in line. I don't think this can be fixed by voting or working within the boundaries of the system. It's working exactly as intended and the laws were not made for us.

I can respect that. I think this is a common misconception. I think the difference here is that to me there is a clear and reasonable distinction to be made between private and corporate property. I don't think it is acceptable to do harm to the property of the citizens you are trying to help. If you burn down a Target, yeah whatever. That doesn't affect Target at all, but the people who work there might not be able to provide for their families after you've destroyed their place of employment. That only makes you look bad to people who might otherwise be persuaded to understand and help you if you just explained it to them. But when you destroy local businesses and cause damage to your city, you do real harm to the people who live there. I'm not sure how that is supposed to help. If I'm missing something here, then let me know.

I'm going AFK for bit so if you want to keep this going, then I'll be back later tomorrow or probably Sunday. If not, then at least we talked about this a bit and I get you a little better now. Hopefully, you get me a little better now as well. Not sure how I feel about some of what you said, but at least I felt something instead of just disregarding you out of hand. That has to account for something.

[SamuraiDrifter]

Okay. I can accept that. I've been harassed by police before. I know it isn't the same thing, but I can extend my understanding of my experience to accommodate and learn from your experiences. However, I have had more positive experiences with law enforcement than negative ones so the idea that all cops are bad and their livelihoods should be taken away from them is something I cannot rectify with my personal experience. There has to be somewhere between those two extremes that accounts for both of our experiences. Maybe we should find that spot and see if we can occupy it together.

No one is claiming that every individual police officer is a "bad person," (what that would even mean is unclear), nor is anyone claiming that every single person's experience with law enforcement is going to be all bad. The issue is more complex than that, as our government forces us to utilize police services by putting them in charge of many public safety functions that absolutely should not involve people with handcuffs, mace, and guns.

What I am saying is that the police, as an institution, do not exist to uphold law and order, or to keep the populace safe. Their ineffectiveness in these areas is a matter of well-documented fact- most violent crimes are not even reported, and of the ones that are, most are not prosecuted or cleared. The majority of people in federal prisons are there for non-violent crimes, while the law regularly fails to prosecute rapists and other offenders whose actions leave people traumatized for life.

Look at the sheer number of offenses for which the penalty is a fine. Such penalties essentially state "this is illegal for the poor, but legal for the rich." Thus the wealthy walk free for crimes that will land the poor in prison.

When people go to prison (the majority of whom, again, have committed non-violent offenses), they are typically put to work for pennies on the dollar, far below minimum wage, in manufacturing or manual labor, in conditions that violate labor laws, providing a fertile source of profit for the very corporations that openly buy politicians. In fact, these corporations have been known to lobby for bills that will keep incarceration rates high, so as not to threaten their income.

Each individual police officer may be a perfect angel in their personal life (though the amount I have personally seen take joy in inflicting suffering upon others contradicts that), but that does not change the fact that every day, they go to work for a state that puts profits ahead of human lives, that uses guns, mace, handcuffs, and batons to enforce the rule of the wealthy, to remove people from their homes when they can't pay their landlords who keep jacking the rent up year after year, to ticket those same people for sleeping in their cars, to stop and frisk a young black kid walking home and arrest him for the joint in his pocket.

The police, as it exists in the United States of America and other western nations, need to be abolished. Armed state enforcers should not be showing up to public health situations involving addicts and the mentally ill and disabled folks. I should not have to worry that I'm going to be shot for removing my wallet when I got stopped for a broken tail light. I should not have to worry that the state is going to discover I enjoy a particular substance and throw me in a cage. And even if the only crimes on the books were violent ones, the prison system is in no way reformative and does not prevent crime or keep people safe. (See sources).

I'm not going to spend another hour typing out the exact plan for how the public safety functions of the police would be replaced because this has already been addressed with numerous other resources. One of my sources includes a video on Rojava, the autonomous zone of 2 million+ people in Northern Syria that has done away with the State and has no police force that resembles anything that exists in the United States. These are not fantasies as the ruling class would have us believe - hundreds of thousands of people worldwide live in self-governed communities. I invite you to consider whether that's a space you can occupy.

'm going to have to let this one stew a bit. We agree about the need for health care. So high five there. However, I don't believe there is such a thing as a victimless crime. Every action has consequences no matter how small. You might not be hurting anyone else, but you are probably hurting yourself. If I'm supposed to care about my fellow man, then how can I allow him to hurt himself? To what extent do I owe it to that person and society to help and what options should be available to me to do so? To me, the law is one such tool and I think it should be used to help people to not bring harm to themselves and other people.

I personally believe that people should have autonomy over their own bodies, and that no one else in society should have a say as to whether or not my particular hobbies are "too dangerous for my own good." However, even if I didn't believe that, I would still believe that the prescription here (heavily fining people or putting them in prison) is significantly worse than the risk posed by recreational drugs, and that other non-violent crimes such as immigration through non-legal channels truly are victimless. Furthermore, even a person truly concerned about others in society harming themselves through their own lifestyle would have to acknowledge that the current legal system is not consistent whatsoever in matching punishment to risk. Food manufacturers put all kinds of harmful substances that are banned by other countries into their products, and not only are they not arrested for it, they're rewarded with mass profits. Meanwhile, tobacco and alcohol are legal, while marijuana (considerably less harmful in essentially every way) are not.

So basically:

1. I should have autonomy over my own body, and it is not the government's place to protect me from myself.
2. Even if it was the government's job to protect me from myself, they would be doing an absolutely terrible job of it right now, since the criminal justice system punishes things that are relatively harmless and actively rewards things that are extremely harmful.

I can respect that. I think this is a common misconception. I think the difference here is that to me there is a clear and reasonable distinction to be made between private and corporate property. I don't think it is acceptable to do harm to the property of the citizens you are trying to help. If you burn down a Target, yeah whatever. That doesn't affect Target at all, but the people who work there might not be able to provide for their families after you've destroyed their place of employment. That only makes you look bad to people who might otherwise be persuaded to understand and help you if you just explained it to them. But when you destroy local businesses and cause damage to your city, you do real harm to the people who live there. I'm not sure how that is supposed to help. If I'm missing something here, then let me know.

Property damage helps because those in power care more about money than lives, so creating a vast expense is one way of getting their attention and forcing their hands. When peaceful protest has been ineffective (as it has in the case of people being murdered by the police), the next escalation above that is property damage. Property damage is frequently compared by the law and those in the media to violence against people, and the comparison I don't think is on any solid ground whatsoever.

You mention that burning down corporate stores hurts the people employed there. First of all, stores like Target guaranteed the jobs of people who were employed there, and the stores are usually completely insured. Secondly, even if that weren't the case, these corporate chain businesses usually drive away small businesses when they open, so the very existence of those stores threatens peoples' livelihoods, and the people who work there are often not paid enough to feed their families on one job regardless.

Finally, what's the alternative to property damage? There's "peaceful protest," aka marching around chanting with signs - that accomplished next to nothing, in part because the only way it's even allowed is if it's easy to ignore. Take Colin Kaepernick, for example. Kneeling for the national anthem was just about the definition of peaceful protest. It just happened to be on a platform that had a lot of attention. And he was blacklisted from the NFL. Or let's look at blocking roads - again, non-violent, just inconvenient (emergency vehicles, the go-to response of most people, have alternate routes for blocked roads, otherwise they'd be in trouble here in construction season), and the State responded by arresting hundreds and making examples of them by hitting them with extreme penalties and referring to them as "terrorists." Finally, after years, it became clear that this was ineffective, as the police continued to shoot people down in the street (or in their own beds) with no repercussions.

Well then, how about voting? The fact that nearly all of the cities with the most heavily militarized police forces, and the cities where most of these shootings occur, are under Democratic administration should show the futility of that idea. Both the Democratic and Republican parties support massive police budgets and have no issue dispatching the cops to deal with any problematic citizens under their rule. Joe Biden directly stated that he wanted to INCREASE police funding in response to shootings, to pay for a number of miniscule reforms that have been tried before and have not led to any decrease in police brutality.

When peaceful protest and voting have both failed, and people are continuing to die, what is to be done? To put things in perspective, significantly more people - about a thousand - were killed in 2019 alone by police than have been killed in every school shooting in American history. This problem is not going away without drastic action. And the next escalation above strictly peaceful protest and electoralism is property damage. I have my own thoughts about the ethical ways to go about this, but obviously groups of angry people are not always rational, and their anger is more than justified.

Sources:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... clearances (Crime clearance rates)
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html (Incarceration rate by offense)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDnenjI ... rDemocracy (The Communes of Rojava: A Model In Societal Self Direction)
https://theoutline.com/post/7423/no-mor ... i=j5bqorr7 (Decent article, also considerable secondary sources on re-offense and the ineffectiveness of additional policing)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ings-2019/ (Police shooting database)

[niknak]

Now tell us about how it was all caused by antifa infiltrators

I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole, but I'm wondering what you think of the photographic evidence linking multiple people who stormed the capital to Antifa riots over the summer. Actual pictures of actual people. The guy with the Viking horns? Photographed at multiple Antifa riots. The two guys standing next to him in that picture taken inside the capitol? Actual Antifa DC members on Antifa DC's website. Just curious. I'm not going to labor the point, but to assume there weren't agitators in the crowd is not a tenable position.

Oh, I have absolutely no doubt the same fucking yahoos turn up to whatever chaotic protest they can find including "Antifa", Q, destroy Wall St, MAGA, whatever. I would not be surprised that these racist fucks can even self justify turning up to BLM protests because they hunger after the chaos in general.

Let's be clear. Antifa doesn't exist as an organisation. There is no membership list. It's a right wing boogey man, like MS13 or migrant caravans - remember them? (yes, these all exist in some way but not in the way they are used by the right wing media).

However, you say because this viking guy has a history of turning up to previous chaotic protest events he is Antifa? Like actually *against* fascism? The one with the Nazi tattoos?
https://twitter.com/adamrutherford/stat ... 1745200129

Do you think this guy knows what fascism even is? Do you think he could define it? Do you think he could explain any actual political views beyond slogans he picked up on banners? Or any of the other duck dynasty fuckwits around him you say are "Antifa"? Just because these fuckwits ally themselves with other anarchic movements means nothing. They wouldn't be able to elucidate their reasons for being there or what they actually want if you asked them. Just look at any number of the interviews journalists captured in the moment for the utter fucking ignorance of most of these people about what they even realistically want beyond spouting "they work for us", "they're stealing our freedom", etc etc

So, no - there were not "Antifa" agitators there just because the same fucking yahoos turned up. I was referring to the laughable "theory" that the entire coup attempt was not the good, patriotic MAGAs worried about democracy, but "Antifa" (which again doesn't exist) intent on discrediting these good peoples' attempts to win back their stolen election.

Beyond these morons, there were plenty of actual seditionist traitors intent on a coup and (i have little doubt) murder. I am not talking about these live streaming insta idiots, who found themselves stumbling into the atrium. I'm talking about the contingent (which included the woman who got shot) who scaled the scaffolding of the building, weapons and zip ties in hand intent on finding Pelosi and Pence and whoever else they could catch and taking them prisoner. These too are a special kind of idiot in that they had a plan and actual political beliefs they can elucidate, but spoke about and planned all this in public on Parler and the like.

I think this is a good summary of how it probably went down.
https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2 ... -happened/

I'm sure the family of the police officer beaten to death with a fire extinguisher...

I had no idea that happened. I had to look it up to get a grip on what happened. That's fucked up. I can only hope those responsible will be held accountable for their actions.

Yes. Though there are different levels of accountability. I suspect we won't get that for those who whipped them up into the frenzy that ultimately caused all this.

You and your moronic views are not welcome here.

I don't think it is up to you to decide who is and isn't welcome here. As long as they don't break the rules, everyone should be welcome here. Disenfranchising people you are too lazy to try and reach does nobody any good. It would be nice to see the progressives to look on the mirror and take some responsibility for their part in why things are as bad as they are now.

Anyway, this guy, (who also elsewhere raged about making people wear masks as barbaric, by the way, so fuck him). He is the very definition of a non contributor, and unable to justify or explain any actual beliefs. It's clear he has not the mental capacity to change his entrenched opinions since he isn't able to explain them, beyond guh own the libs, you're a sheep blah blah type shit, and sub Orwellian copypasta slogans from the altright dictionary.

Fuck him. He just dismissed the murder of a law enforcement officer trying to protect people by these people as a freak accident. His lack of capacity for self reflection is illustrated by this alone. This is another example of what these poetic patriots did to law enforcement officers, by the way. It's a miracle only one was killed
https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/statu ... 5777011714

If he is able to properly explain and defend his views then fine, but from his posts it's clear he cannot beyond slogans so he can fuck right off. So i have no problem giving him my opinion that he is not welcome. It's a form of words. No, i am not the twoism police. But it does seem to be the consensus.

Though I disagree with much of your views at least you are engaging in interesting, reasoned, well argued debate, though honestly i don't have the time to engage in it myself any more than this.

In summary, fuck this guy, but i look forward to reading your further opinions that i greatly disagree with

[jcnporter]

Deleted double post