Does Anybody Here Sympathize With The Looters That Cause Destruction?

by minimus 84 Replies latest jw friends

  • minimus

    “Protesters are law abiding citizens “ can protest and still not be law abiding. Rioters are often called protesters by the media and others. Just because someone may prefer the word protesters, it doesn’t mean that’s all they really are. Some “protest” and burn down buildings. And they are still referred to as protesters.

    Regarding the incorrect picture used, you are asking ME why they used it. How would I know?? Like I said they could have a number of pics from different cities in America that have been affected by the peaceful protesters.

  • jp1692

    Minimus: Regarding the incorrect picture used, you are asking ME why they used it.

    No, it's a rhetorical question asked of anyone and everyone reading this thread. It's not about you.

    When I say "protesters," I mean protesters. Just as when I say "rioters," I mean rioters. They're not the same (although I acknowledge that an individual could do both). I was making a distinction between two separate activities—one legal and the other not. You seemed to understand that in your post on the first page in response to mine.

    I'm not responsible for what other people say, including—and maybe especially—the media and politicians.

    Minimus: Rioters are often called protesters by the media and others.

    And protesters are often called rioters by the media and certain politicians. Like I said, I'm not responsible for what other people say.

    Minimus: Like I said, they could have a number of pics from different cities in America that have been affected by the peaceful protesters.

    Agreed. It's weird they didn't. We can only speculate why.

  • trillaz
    Make an example of Umbrella Man!!!
  • Simon
    what they're not realizing is that insurance rates go up because of their actions and business owners (and others) end up paying for the damage anyway. Where do they think the insurance funds come from?

    The notion that business won't suffer loss because "insurance" is an excuse used by the rioting left to excuse their criminal behavior. Many policies exclude losses from civil disturbance and riots from coverage so some businesses will be finished. Those that aren't will face higher premiums that will also finish many, especially given the challenges faced from COVID.

    Longer term, no one will invest to start new businesses in these places. The sad fact is that if there is a large black community they won't get investment, because which idiot wants to pour money away on such a risk?

    In 5-10 years time there will be bleating about how things have been so unfair because they don't have stores and other amenities. It's self-fulfilling prophecy, which I think is carefully planned to keep them in their place, resentful, easy-to-control and voting for the dems.

  • Peeringin

    Just some of my current thoughts...

    I do not condone those who have damaged property in the name of justice. I do however understand the point that is often made that is used to justify the behaviour, whilst still disagreeing with it.

    There is a social contract. People generally behave and treat each other well and abide by the law. If they don't and they break the contract then they are punished by the society around them through the judicial system. The contract stipulates that if you are in trouble or your safety is at risk, you contact the police who will enforce the law and maintain your safety/ seek justice if you are harmed.

    From my reading of current events the reasoning for the destruction of property is thus. The social contract does not apply to POC. POC have been made to feel that the police is against them, treat them unfairly, and that the judicial system overly punishes people who look like them (I won't discuss the veracity of these claims but I hope this is a fair representation of the sentiment). The reasoning then goes something like...

    "Why should I strive to adhere to a social contract that does not benefit me and actively works against me." This results in some taking the view that it's a 'free for all' and looting/ businesses are fair game. A sentiment I vehemently disagree with. I can also appreciate how these demonstrations can be used by those who are not engaged in the reason for the protest, but see this as an opportunity to profit materially.

    I also think it's worth making a distinction between the Black Lives Matter political organisation and the sentiment that black lives matter (which I'll acronym BLM and blm2 (black lives matter too). BLM is a political organisation with explicit aims that are detailed on their website for all to view. I'm not convinced that everyone at these rallies affiliates with this group, the issue is that the slogan is a good shorthand for 'black lives matter too'. I think this distinction helps with some of the All Lives Matter/ Blue Lives Matter takes on this position...

    It goes without saying that people's lives matter, but the idea of blm2 is that there is a portion of the population who have for some time felt that their lives were not as important as those of other people around them in the community, that they 'don't matter'. (Again the veracity of this can be debated, I'm sure some responses to this would include people considering themselves victims, and that they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get on with it. etc etc.) Therefore they protest against this injustice.

    The looting and destruction of property can often become a distraction to the issue that is being protested, and that is a shame regardless of the cause being protested. It can equally be used to discredit the protests, somehow implying their invalid. Ultimately, damaging your community/ someone else's community results in a net loss (see: broken window fallacy).

    I can't begin to imagine how a feeling of cultural second class citizenry would make me perceive the world and feel towards it. Perhaps I would be compelled to cause property destruction to express my frustration and to have my voice heard. Maybe I would perceive the world as offering nothing to me and that I must grab everything I can before it's taken away. I don't think I would but I cannot be certain.

    Ultimately, I feel that the destruction of property and looting should be met with criminal prosecution of those responsible, regardless of which side of conversation you are on.

    TLDR: Response to OP - No.

  • redvip2000
    I can't begin to imagine how a feeling of cultural second class citizenry would make me perceive the world and feel towards it. Perhaps I would be compelled to cause property destruction to express my frustration and to have my voice heard.

    So if there is stereotype towards black people and their association with crime, and the resulting increased interactions with police, and the resulting disproportional incarceration rate, it's logical to reinforce that stereotype by further committing criminal acts against completely innocent people?

    Hardly seems logical. How is that perceived by the rest of the population and what does it do to the reputation of black folks?

    Also considering that a large portion of those destroying is white, what does it say about the real motivation behind this?

    Curiously, many of the black folks who are exhibiting token rage in support of black lives in their communities, will look the other way as their brothers and sisters get slaughtered by street crime. Children routinely get killed as a byproduct of street crime, yet no outrage. Where is the consistency? and again how is that interpreted by the rest of population as they see this duality of criteria (hipocrisy)?

  • Simon

    BLM don't care about black lives, they care about marxism.

    The dems don't care about black lives, they care about power and votes.

    Too many black people don't even care about black lives, if they did they would behave differently.

    Why should anyone else care about them? They are demonstrating every stereotype they can. If they can feel "aggrieved" based on a perceptions unsupported with facts, then why can't other people feel aggrieved based on the very real facts of the violence and criminal behavior of these groups?

    There are social contracts and they are breaking them, the breaking goes both ways when it comes to hiring choices and investing.

    There is NOTHING for them to protest. They have equality, they are simply looking for excuses to behave how they do because no one in their right mind loses any sleep over violent rapists, murderers and other thugs being arrested or shot, whatever color they are.

    There are many way more deserving lives to "protest" over than the ones they chose. I don't believe anyone cares about any incident other than it being an excuse to riot and loot.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @Peeringin: You are right, some people, especially blacks, have been made to believe that the law does not apply to them, going in both directions.

    This is a result from decades of voter miseducation by left-wing politicians. You can't tear down the system if you don't have a boogeyman that requires tearing down the system.

    If BLM and DNC believed what they say and the system is corrupted to the bone, then why are they trying to get Biden elected at all? The people that believe in these lies and are willingly joining left-wing terrorists and think it is a good cause, will realize that as soon as 'their person' is in office, these problems all go away.

    If BLM believes that systemic racism was a thing, why did Obama not save them? Why did Clinton not save them? Why does the governor in California or New York never solve the problems in their state? They have a captive audience in NY and CA, they have ALL the lawmakers on the left for years, yet the supposed symptoms of "systemic racism" are the worst in those states.

  • minimus

    So if we try to put ourselves in their shoes we might want to demonstrate, riot and steal?? Nah I don’t think so.

  • jp1692

    Where I live in California, the penalties for looting are somewhat less severe than what someone like DwainBowman suggested in the post above:

    • Under Penal Code 463 PC, California law defines “looting” as taking advantage of a state of emergency to commit burglary, grand theft or petty theft. Looting charges can be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony and is punishable by up to 3 years in jail.

    As I have repeatedly said on this thread, looting is a crime which should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

    I'm glad we no longer live in a society with primitive and draconian laws and punishments such as Bowman suggests.

    It's weird how people who have left a cult such as Jehovah's Witnesses will still hold onto punitive, vengeful emotions indulged by that evil book known as the Bible and exemplified by its main character, the capricious and jealous desert god: Jehovah.

Share this