OT: Cops kill George Floyd

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

You can't stop that

I hope people stop using social media to justify bad tactics

We're going to see the biggest demonstrations since the Sixties with greater diversity than before. This is a good thing. We need to promote mass peaceful protest

When generals and admirals are unprecedentedly speaking out against the president like they are against Trump now, history is on your side if you don't blow it by inciting violence as the response

[ellobo]

The fact of the matter is, Derek Chauvin may not have been charged at all, and he certainly wouldn't have had his charges upgraded to 2nd degree murder, had it not been for the defensive protests, property damage, and looting.

Likewise, his 3 accomplices would likely not have been charged either, had it not been for the massive amounts of supporters engaging in the 3 aforementioned actions.

These statements are impossible to prove or disprove, but I vehemently disagree. Chauvin and the other officers were arrested because enough people were outraged that George Floyd was callously murdered while he was helpless, and enough of those people were outraged enough to make their voices heard. So what does it mean that they "made their voices heard?" People protested peacefully AND people damaged property and looted. So what caused the authorities to respond? We can't conclusively disentangle the causes.

BUT, I believe that the decisive factor is the scale of outrage at the moral offensiveness of the crime.

Why were so many outraged at the tear gassing of protestors in Trump's church stunt? Because the protestors were peaceful and were violently attacked.

Why were so many outraged at the 75 year-old in Buffalo being knocked to the ground. Because he was unthreatening and was violently attacked.

When protestors can say to militarized police, "There's NO RIOT HERE. Why are you in riot gear?" people seeing that just might question the militarization of police. But when people see fires, broken windows, and looting, a lot of them are going to not only accept, but demand a violent response.

The powers that be don't actually give a **** about looting and property damage. It doesn't threaten their power one bit and just gives them an excuse to respond violently to any and all civil unrest. Rioting and looting are mosquito bites on the ankles of the power structure. And you deal with a mosquito problem by spraying them with poison and killing them all.

Curfews are not meant to stop looting. They are a means to criminalize peaceful protest by making normally lawful activity criminal.

It isn't the looting that threatens the status quo, it's the groundswell of public opinion that the status quo needs to change. Looting undermines that groundswell and thereby supports the status quo.

Remember, the people comprise the military and the police force. At some point, they will be reminded of who they are. After all, they live amongst the people when they are not on the clock. Strength has always been in numbers and the power has and will always rest with the people.

Well, here's where I think the opportunity lies in the current moment. Peaceful protest is easy to ignore and dismiss if the only people protesting are a relatively small and historically marginalized group complaining about their own problems. It's when the larger population starts to recognize and empathize with the pain of their brothers and sisters (when they start of look at them as brothers and sisters in the first place), it's when they shift their view of who is "us" and who is "them," that change can happen.

[Clyde_Style]

The fact of the matter is, Derek Chauvin may not have been charged at all, and he certainly wouldn't have had his charges upgraded to 2nd degree murder, had it not been for the defensive protests, property damage, and looting.

Likewise, his 3 accomplices would likely not have been charged either, had it not been for the massive amounts of supporters engaging in the 3 aforementioned actions.

These statements are impossible to prove or disprove, but I vehemently disagree. Chauvin and the other officers were arrested because enough people were outraged that George Floyd was callously murdered while he was helpless, and enough of those people were outraged enough to make their voices heard. So what does it mean that they "made their voices heard?" People protested peacefully AND people damaged property and looted. So what caused the authorities to respond? We can't conclusively disentangle the causes.

BUT, I believe that the decisive factor is the scale of outrage at the moral offensiveness of the crime.

Why were so many outraged at the tear gassing of protestors in Trump's church stunt? Because the protestors were peaceful and were violently attacked.

Why were so many outraged at the 75 year-old in Buffalo being knocked to the ground. Because he was unthreatening and was violently attacked.

When protestors can say to militarized police, "There's NO RIOT HERE. Why are you in riot gear?" people seeing that just might question the militarization of police. But when people see looting and broken windows, a lot of them are going to not only accept, but demand a violent response.

The powers that be don't actually give a **** about looting and property damage. It doesn't threaten their power one bit and just gives them an excuse to respond violently to any and all civil unrest. Rioting and looting are mosquito bites on the ankles of the power structure. And you deal with a mosquito problem by spraying them with poison and killing them all.

Curfews are not meant to stop looting. They are a means to criminalize peaceful protest by making normally lawful activity criminal.

It isn't the looting that threatens the status quo, it's the groundswell of public opinion that the status quo needs to change. Looting undermines that groundswell and thereby supports the status quo.

Remember, the people comprise the military and the police force. At some point, they will be reminded of who they are. After all, they live amongst the people when they are not on the clock. Strength has always been in numbers and the power has and will always rest with the people.

Well, here's where I think the opportunity lies in the current moment. Peaceful protest is easy to ignore and dismiss if the only people protesting are a relatively small and historically marginalized group complaining about their own problems. It's when the larger population starts to recognize and empathize with the pain of their brothers and sisters (when they start of look at them as brothers and sisters in the first place), it's when they shift their view of who is "us" and who is "them," that change can happen.

Yes

Understanding history also means grasping the meaning of the moment before you let it slip away

This is a historical moment to show unity through collective action via the demonstration of peaceful force from a diverse demographic

If we can't capitalize on that to build bridges now then how can we expect to deal with the root causes of racism in the future?

[Clyde_Style]

Trump wants you to loot

The more chaos the better

You want to talk about fear?

They fear that demonstration in Philly

That's what works

[robillionaire]

I want to emphasize the police incited violence by murdering black people, and they did again, by attacking and brutalizing peaceful protesters. the people are not the violent ones. we are not attacking and trying to kill and maim human beings. the police are. property damage and looting, which hasn't been happening for days now, are not in the same category as what the police are doing to the people. this is one-sided state violence being waged against citizens because they are demanding accountability from the police and demanding that they stop killing black people

[HarthorneWingo]

I want to emphasize the police incited violence by murdering black people, and they did again, by attacking and brutalizing peaceful protesters. the people are not the violent ones. we are not attacking and trying to kill and maim human beings. the police are. property damage and looting, which hasn't been happening for days now, are not in the same category as what the police are doing to the people. this is one-sided state violence being waged against citizens because they are demanding accountability from the police and demanding that they stop killing black people

We are witnessing the crumbling of the American capitalistic system. We'll need to find a new way forward on my levels and we certainly need to completely restructure the operations of our local law enforcement agencies. We're a fcking mess right now.

[Fat Kat]

[Clyde_Style]

I want to emphasize the police incited violence by murdering black people, and they did again, by attacking and brutalizing peaceful protesters. the people are not the violent ones. we are not attacking and trying to kill and maim human beings. the police are. property damage and looting, which hasn't been happening for days now, are not in the same category as what the police are doing to the people. this is one-sided state violence being waged against citizens because they are demanding accountability from the police and demanding that they stop killing black people

You just framed looting as the lesser of two evils. That doesn't make it right.

You try to go head to head and you will lose. GUARANTEED. You facilitate continued looting and you will lose. GUARANTEED.

Only hearts and minds working together will triumph.

[Clyde_Style]

You post good stuff and then you post this which, correct me if I'm wrong about your intention, implies people advocating peaceful protest are trying to subjugate black people by discouraging a violent response.

If that is your intent, that sucks, because it tries to frame someone as myself as a collaborator with oppression.

If I'm reading you wrong, then apologies in advance.

[2010]

The fact of the matter is, Derek Chauvin may not have been charged at all, and he certainly wouldn't have had his charges upgraded to 2nd degree murder, had it not been for the defensive protests, property damage, and looting.

Likewise, his 3 accomplices would likely not have been charged either, had it not been for the massive amounts of supporters engaging in the 3 aforementioned actions.

These statements are impossible to prove or disprove, but I vehemently disagree. Chauvin and the other officers were arrested because enough people were outraged that George Floyd was callously murdered while he was helpless, and enough of those people were outraged enough to make their voices heard. So what does it mean that they "made their voices heard?" People protested peacefully AND people damaged property and looted. So what caused the authorities to respond? We can't conclusively disentangle the causes.

BUT, I believe that the decisive factor is the scale of outrage at the moral offensiveness of the crime.

Why were so many outraged at the tear gassing of protestors in Trump's church stunt? Because the protestors were peaceful and were violently attacked.

Why were so many outraged at the 75 year-old in Buffalo being knocked to the ground. Because he was unthreatening and was violently attacked.

When protestors can say to militarized police, "There's NO RIOT HERE. Why are you in riot gear?" people seeing that just might question the militarization of police. But when people see looting and broken windows, a lot of them are going to not only accept, but demand a violent response.

The powers that be don't actually give a **** about looting and property damage. It doesn't threaten their power one bit and just gives them an excuse to respond violently to any and all civil unrest. Rioting and looting are mosquito bites on the ankles of the power structure. And you deal with a mosquito problem by spraying them with poison and killing them all.

Curfews are not meant to stop looting. They are a means to criminalize peaceful protest by making normally lawful activity criminal.

It isn't the looting that threatens the status quo, it's the groundswell of public opinion that the status quo needs to change. Looting undermines that groundswell and thereby supports the status quo.

Remember, the people comprise the military and the police force. At some point, they will be reminded of who they are. After all, they live amongst the people when they are not on the clock. Strength has always been in numbers and the power has and will always rest with the people.

Well, here's where I think the opportunity lies in the current moment. Peaceful protest is easy to ignore and dismiss if the only people protesting are a relatively small and historically marginalized group complaining about their own problems. It's when the larger population starts to recognize and empathize with the pain of their brothers and sisters (when they start of look at them as brothers and sisters in the first place), it's when they shift their view of who is "us" and who is "them," that change can happen.

You are making some valid points. But what I will say is, your stance rings true now that the rally cry has been heard by the masses.

But I believe the initial response, that I am speaking of, was just as impactful at that moment. Cuz it was a call for attention, and now our voices have been heard by the entire world due to the actions we have taken. Actions that were completely necessary, and visually effective enough that it demanded the world's attention.

I think in recent occurrences when we took peaceful measures it was brushed aside, misunderstood, or attempted to be discredited.

Which is why I am of the mindset that peaceful protest without the willingness to back it up with defensive/violent protest, property damage, and looting is ineffective. For it will continually be ignored. There has to be some action to back up demands, and the maintaining of peace becomes the meeting point.

In hindsight, I think the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe now that we have the world's attention, maybe we scale back the more extreme measures. But we still must maintain the mindset of being willing to do WHATEVER is necessary to get what's owed, and what should be a human birthright.

With that said, I will never denounce the right for defensive protest (with violence), or extreme measures in a call for awareness when peaceful methods have failed.

[Fat Kat]

You post good stuff and then you post this which, correct me if I'm wrong about your intention, implies people advocating peaceful protest are trying to subjugate black people by discouraging a violent response.

If that is your intent, that sucks, because it tries to frame someone as myself as a collaborator with oppression.

If I'm reading you wrong, then apologies in advance.

Here’s what I’m saying. As a victim of multiple instances of police violence, you’re unsolicited input into how I deal with it is unwelcome. I know your stance, and don’t wish to engage with you. Please respect that.

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

[Clyde_Style]

The fact of the matter is, Derek Chauvin may not have been charged at all, and he certainly wouldn't have had his charges upgraded to 2nd degree murder, had it not been for the defensive protests, property damage, and looting.

Likewise, his 3 accomplices would likely not have been charged either, had it not been for the massive amounts of supporters engaging in the 3 aforementioned actions.

These statements are impossible to prove or disprove, but I vehemently disagree. Chauvin and the other officers were arrested because enough people were outraged that George Floyd was callously murdered while he was helpless, and enough of those people were outraged enough to make their voices heard. So what does it mean that they "made their voices heard?" People protested peacefully AND people damaged property and looted. So what caused the authorities to respond? We can't conclusively disentangle the causes.

BUT, I believe that the decisive factor is the scale of outrage at the moral offensiveness of the crime.

Why were so many outraged at the tear gassing of protestors in Trump's church stunt? Because the protestors were peaceful and were violently attacked.

Why were so many outraged at the 75 year-old in Buffalo being knocked to the ground. Because he was unthreatening and was violently attacked.

When protestors can say to militarized police, "There's NO RIOT HERE. Why are you in riot gear?" people seeing that just might question the militarization of police. But when people see looting and broken windows, a lot of them are going to not only accept, but demand a violent response.

The powers that be don't actually give a **** about looting and property damage. It doesn't threaten their power one bit and just gives them an excuse to respond violently to any and all civil unrest. Rioting and looting are mosquito bites on the ankles of the power structure. And you deal with a mosquito problem by spraying them with poison and killing them all.

Curfews are not meant to stop looting. They are a means to criminalize peaceful protest by making normally lawful activity criminal.

It isn't the looting that threatens the status quo, it's the groundswell of public opinion that the status quo needs to change. Looting undermines that groundswell and thereby supports the status quo.

Remember, the people comprise the military and the police force. At some point, they will be reminded of who they are. After all, they live amongst the people when they are not on the clock. Strength has always been in numbers and the power has and will always rest with the people.

Well, here's where I think the opportunity lies in the current moment. Peaceful protest is easy to ignore and dismiss if the only people protesting are a relatively small and historically marginalized group complaining about their own problems. It's when the larger population starts to recognize and empathize with the pain of their brothers and sisters (when they start of look at them as brothers and sisters in the first place), it's when they shift their view of who is "us" and who is "them," that change can happen.

You are making some valid points. But what I will say is your stance rings true now that they rally cry has been heard by the masses.

But I believe the initial response that I am speaking of was just as impactful for that moment. Cuz it was a call for attention. And now we've been heard.

I think in recent occurrences when we took peaceful measures it was brushed aside, misunderstood, or attempted to be discredited.

Which is why I am of the mindset that peaceful protest without the willingness to back it up with defensive/violent protest, property damage, and looting is ineffective. For it will just continually be ignored.

In hindsight, I think the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe now that we have the world's attention, maybe we scale back the more extreme measures. But we still must maintain the mindset of being willing to do whatever is necessary to get what's owed, and what should be a human birthright.

Advocating implied violence as leverage when the deck is stacked against you is not good advice.

We all know that the white crackers standing at the side of the road with their semi-automatics is implied violence.

We all know that those same people with weapons on the steps of state capitols is implied violence.

And we all know that if Blacks and Puerto Ricans did exactly the same they'd be beaten to a pulp or murdered by the police.

So the answer is not burning and looting. It won't work. It will lead to more chaos which is what the bad guys are banking on. They are praying you play right into their hands.

Implied violence is not the leverage you think it is, because you have no ability to organize and weaponize an insurrection that will storm the citadels of power and gain control and set things right. YOU HAVE NO SUCH POWER and you are kidding yourself if you think you do.

All that would do is invigorate Robocop and wipe out thousands of people who get caught up in the chaos.

They aren't afraid of you. You're misguided in your assumptions that you can threaten state power with force and get any kind of results. That is not strategic thinking.

The only result that will produce a change of regime is the ballot box. Bullets won't do chit. That's a fantasy.

[Clyde_Style]

You post good stuff and then you post this which, correct me if I'm wrong about your intention, implies people advocating peaceful protest are trying to subjugate black people by discouraging a violent response.

If that is your intent, that sucks, because it tries to frame someone as myself as a collaborator with oppression.

If I'm reading you wrong, then apologies in advance.

Here’s what I’m saying. As a victim of multiple instances of police violence, you’re unsolicited input into how I deal with it is unwelcome. I know your stance, and don’t wish to engage with you. Please respect that.

So are you going murder a cop now?

You may not want to deal with it, but I explain myself and make a case for my POV.

All you did now was bait me and then not deal with the consequences of it.

[Clyde_Style]

Well done

I'm a racist because I advocate a unified, peaceful response

I'm "WHITEY"

Bravo

[robillionaire]

Well done

I'm a racist because I advocate a unified, peaceful response

I'm "WHITEY"

Bravo

nobody even said that. your fragility is showing.

go re-watch the entire 51 minute jane elliott blue eye brown eye experiment on youtube take a deep breath and come back

[ellobo]

The fact of the matter is, Derek Chauvin may not have been charged at all, and he certainly wouldn't have had his charges upgraded to 2nd degree murder, had it not been for the defensive protests, property damage, and looting.

Likewise, his 3 accomplices would likely not have been charged either, had it not been for the massive amounts of supporters engaging in the 3 aforementioned actions.

These statements are impossible to prove or disprove, but I vehemently disagree. Chauvin and the other officers were arrested because enough people were outraged that George Floyd was callously murdered while he was helpless, and enough of those people were outraged enough to make their voices heard. So what does it mean that they "made their voices heard?" People protested peacefully AND people damaged property and looted. So what caused the authorities to respond? We can't conclusively disentangle the causes.

BUT, I believe that the decisive factor is the scale of outrage at the moral offensiveness of the crime.

Why were so many outraged at the tear gassing of protestors in Trump's church stunt? Because the protestors were peaceful and were violently attacked.

Why were so many outraged at the 75 year-old in Buffalo being knocked to the ground. Because he was unthreatening and was violently attacked.

When protestors can say to militarized police, "There's NO RIOT HERE. Why are you in riot gear?" people seeing that just might question the militarization of police. But when people see looting and broken windows, a lot of them are going to not only accept, but demand a violent response.

The powers that be don't actually give a **** about looting and property damage. It doesn't threaten their power one bit and just gives them an excuse to respond violently to any and all civil unrest. Rioting and looting are mosquito bites on the ankles of the power structure. And you deal with a mosquito problem by spraying them with poison and killing them all.

Curfews are not meant to stop looting. They are a means to criminalize peaceful protest by making normally lawful activity criminal.

It isn't the looting that threatens the status quo, it's the groundswell of public opinion that the status quo needs to change. Looting undermines that groundswell and thereby supports the status quo.

Remember, the people comprise the military and the police force. At some point, they will be reminded of who they are. After all, they live amongst the people when they are not on the clock. Strength has always been in numbers and the power has and will always rest with the people.

Well, here's where I think the opportunity lies in the current moment. Peaceful protest is easy to ignore and dismiss if the only people protesting are a relatively small and historically marginalized group complaining about their own problems. It's when the larger population starts to recognize and empathize with the pain of their brothers and sisters (when they start of look at them as brothers and sisters in the first place), it's when they shift their view of who is "us" and who is "them," that change can happen.

You are making some valid points. But what I will say is, your stance rings true now that the rally cry has been heard by the masses.

But I believe the initial response that I am speaking of was just as impactful in that moment. Cuz it was a call for attention, and now our voices have been heard.

I think in recent occurrences when we took peaceful measures it was brushed aside, misunderstood, or attempted to be discredited.

Which is why I am of the mindset that peaceful protest without the willingness to back it up with defensive/violent protest, property damage, and looting is ineffective. For it will continually be ignored. There has to be some action to back up demands, and the maintaining of peace becomes the meeting point.

In hindsight, I think the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe now that we have the world's attention, maybe we scale back the more extreme measures. But we still must maintain the mindset of being willing to do WHATEVER is necessary to get what's owed, and what should be a human birthright.

With that said, I will never denounce the right for defensive protest (with violence), or extreme measures in a call for awareness when peaceful methods have failed.

Thank you for being open to considering my point of view.

I've had thoughts about these issues for a lifetime and have some strong convictions, but there's a lot I'm currently processing and reprocessing in real time. In writing the above, I actually edited and rewrote a lot of it multiple times because I was imagining potential counterarguments and modifying my thinking and how I expressed it as I went.

It's all a work in progress -- within ourselves and out there in the world.

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

Wow. During a pandemic. Incredible

[Clyde_Style]

Well done

I'm a racist because I advocate a unified, peaceful response

I'm "WHITEY"

Bravo

nobody even said that. your fragility is showing.

go re-watch the entire 51 minute jane elliott blue eye brown eye experiment on youtube take a deep breath and come back

They knew what they were doing. Either you don't or you condone that kind of cheap racism. The book cover's author was Whitey. Get a clue