Looter murders retired police captain

[Toni]

Face it: Some people will see Harriet Tubman as a thief and insurrectionist.

Yep. Target and Wells Fargo own black slaves.

Ah, so moral principles are relative to the context.

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_account_fraud_scandal

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-philadelphia-idUSKBN1F52MF

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...redatory-practices-hurt-customers-and-workers

https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2020/06/01/heres-looters-chose-target-stores-focus-rage/

 

[Worldtraveller]

For those who are prattling on about how looting is "just as bad" as systemic racial oppression, read this:

https://www.facebook.com/anthony.parrott.1806/posts/255633848991101

Then fuck off.

 

[Metaphor]

Face it: Some people will see Harriet Tubman as a thief and insurrectionist.

Yep. Target and Wells Fargo own black slaves.

Ah, so moral principles are relative to the context.

Well--yes. That's why slaves uprising against their owners is morally justified, but destroying the property of businesses who provide goods and services on a voluntary basis to the public is absolutely not morally justified.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah, so moral principles are relative to the context.

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_account_fraud_scandal

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-philadelphia-idUSKBN1F52MF

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...redatory-practices-hurt-customers-and-workers

https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2020/06/01/heres-looters-chose-target-stores-focus-rage/

That last article is quite telling, Toni. Did you read it? I particularly like the last paragraph.

Most Americans are happy to see companies support local police and law enforcement agencies in their communities. Anarchists have no interest in building safe, livable communities. They are absolutely shameless, destroying property and looting in broad daylight. Their mission is to create divisions and chaos. The riots are particularly hard to watch at this time when so many businesses and their employees are struggling to reopen after the coronavirus pandemic shut down the national economy. Now these employees, who managed to hang on to their jobs during the pandemic, face unemployment due to the violence that comes from these protests.

 

[Toni]

That last article is quite telling, Toni. Did you read it? I particularly like the last paragraph.

Most Americans are happy to see companies support local police and law enforcement agencies in their communities. Anarchists have no interest in building safe, livable communities. They are absolutely shameless, destroying property and looting in broad daylight. Their mission is to create divisions and chaos. The riots are particularly hard to watch at this time when so many businesses and their employees are struggling to reopen after the coronavirus pandemic shut down the national economy. Now these employees, who managed to hang on to their jobs during the pandemic, face unemployment due to the violence that comes from these protests.

I did. Did you? The article details some fairly legitimate reasons for anger against Target and Target in that particular location. The article clearly sees the looters as anarchsists. IMO, that’s a pretty absurd assertion.

Do you believe that the people who looted the Target were anarchists?

Do you believe that it was one cohesive group of people doing the looting?

In Minneapolis and other cities, some businesses were absolutely targeted and some were not only spared but deliberately guarded and protected by people from the community.

Who do you think the umbrella guy was—who actually started the looting and destruction? An anarchist? Provocateur?

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, so moral principles are relative to the context.

Well--yes. That's why slaves uprising against their owners is morally justified, but destroying the property of businesses who provide goods and services on a voluntary basis to the public is absolutely not morally justified.

Slave owners ran businesses which provided goods and services on a voluntary basis to the public. A slave uprising did destroy physical property of those businesses. Yet you say it was morally justified in that case, but not in these cases. Hmmm.

 

[Metaphor]

I did. Did you? The article details some fairly legitimate reasons for anger against Target and Target in that particular location.

Evidently, 'legitimate' appears to be subjective. I found no legitimate reasons for anger against Target. Indeed, many of the listed reasons I found to be laudatory, or at least neutral.

• Target donating funds to the police (SafeZone collaboration, Heroes and Helpers). I was waiting for the clarification that it was the morality police in Afghanistan or something.
• Target settled a complaint with EEOC on a claim that Target discriminated on "race, gender and ability". I don't know the details of the case, but I would bet money that the three employee assessments were not any kind of 'ist'. I've seen the insane-o-sphere that is American 'equal opportunity', like throwing out the results of tests that white firefighters did too well on solely because white firefighters did too well.
• a present-day store is sited on land that developers legitimately acquired in the 1950s

The article clearly sees the looters as anarchsists. IMO, that’s a pretty absurd assertion.

Do you believe that the people who looted the Target were anarchists?

I think some of them surely are.

Do you believe that it was one cohesive group of people doing the looting?

No. But whether they were anarchists or not isn't really relevant. The vast majority of the American population, including the black population, don't even support reducing police budgets, let alone near-complete 'defunding'.

In Minneapolis and other cities, some businesses were absolutely targeted and some were not only spared but deliberately guarded and protected by people from the community.

What would you like me to take away from this? That people have to choose a particular (small-t) target when they decide to loot? Well, yes. Muggers also have to choose a particular victim to mug.

It amazes me that you think looting is justified because some group of people don't like a particular store. It is a pure case of blaming the victim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That does not excuse Jarhyn's indifference to immoral acts by appealing to the 'inevitability' of them.

It may once one understands many people see a distinct difference between a corporation and person so that actions that are immoral against a person are not necessarily viewed as immoral when done against a corporation. So, it would be conceivable that an action viewed as "inevitable" against a person would be seen as immoral but moral when done against a corporation.

Corporations are just groups of people. It's a pretty high burden for something to be ok to do to a group that wouldn't be ok to do to the individuals that make up the group.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People own corporations. Destroying the property of a corporation is destroying (likely many) people's property. Looting a store is stealing from people.

Now, I consider non-state actors stealing from people and destroying property that does not belong to them to be engaging in immoral acts. But, I'm a nutjob like that, you know?

i tried to explain the difference. Everyone is entitled to their moral beliefs.

Personally, I don't care who the actor is. I consider people blocking any access to the resources they need to live for good lives on the basis that they didn't already have those resources to be a fundamentally unethical act.

So theft is fine? How would you feel if people came and took your stuff because they wanted it?

I consider the exportation of those resources because people were systematically deprived of any opportunities to acquire the means of production to be a fundamentally unethical act.

Except they weren't. The problem is one of attitude--to acquire the means of production you must live for the future, not for the now.

I consider drug wars and enforcement of laws designed to make them socially immobile to be fundamentally unethical, especially in their selective enforcement against people of color.

That is not the purpose. Drugs are harmful. The problem is the idiots in charge don't realize that the drug war is even more harmful. And it's not selective enforcement, it's cops taking the easy path--it's much easier to bust a street dealer so that's who they tend to bust. Furthermore, in general the only way to the higher ups is to bust the low level people and get them to testify against their bosses.

This isn't screed. It's principles. It's the principle that says I have a right to subvert, destroy, and cut off the thumb that holds people down. They never stopped trying to own black people. They just changed the model of how they did it. They fuzzed the edges a bit. But it's still there if you have the bravery to see it. But my bet is on cowardice and continued willful blindness from the "very fine people".

The primary oppressors of black people today are black people and you have basically no hope of getting out from under that thumb until you figure out whose thumb it really is.

 

[laughing dog]

That does not excuse Jarhyn's indifference to immoral acts by appealing to the 'inevitability' of them.

It may once one understands many people see a distinct difference between a corporation and person so that actions that are immoral against a person are not necessarily viewed as immoral when done against a corporation. So, it would be conceivable that an action viewed as "inevitable" against a person would be seen as immoral but moral when done against a corporation.

Corporations are just groups of people. It's a pretty high burden for something to be ok to do to a group that wouldn't be ok to do to the individuals that make up the group.

Corporations are not "just groups" of people: corporations have different legal status than people. As a matter of fact, they get legal privileges that individuals do not.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Personally, I don't care who the actor is. I consider people blocking any access to the resources they need to live for good lives on the basis that they didn't already have those resources to be a fundamentally unethical act.

So theft is fine? How would you feel if people came and took your stuff because they wanted it?

I consider the exportation of those resources because people were systematically deprived of any opportunities to acquire the means of production to be a fundamentally unethical act.

Except they weren't. The problem is one of attitude--to acquire the means of production you must live for the future, not for the now.

I consider drug wars and enforcement of laws designed to make them socially immobile to be fundamentally unethical, especially in their selective enforcement against people of color.

That is not the purpose. Drugs are harmful. The problem is the idiots in charge don't realize that the drug war is even more harmful. And it's not selective enforcement, it's cops taking the easy path--it's much easier to bust a street dealer so that's who they tend to bust. Furthermore, in general the only way to the higher ups is to bust the low level people and get them to testify against their bosses.

This isn't screed. It's principles. It's the principle that says I have a right to subvert, destroy, and cut off the thumb that holds people down. They never stopped trying to own black people. They just changed the model of how they did it. They fuzzed the edges a bit. But it's still there if you have the bravery to see it. But my bet is on cowardice and continued willful blindness from the "very fine people".

The primary oppressors of black people today are black people and you have basically no hope of getting out from under that thumb until you figure out whose thumb it really is.

really?

 

[Trausti]

The primary oppressors of black people today are black people and you have basically no hope of getting out from under that thumb until you figure out whose thumb it really is.

This is the most consequential fact of our present times but one that will get you cancelled if mentioned.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So theft is fine? How would you feel if people came and took your stuff because they wanted it?



Except they weren't. The problem is one of attitude--to acquire the means of production you must live for the future, not for the now.

I consider drug wars and enforcement of laws designed to make them socially immobile to be fundamentally unethical, especially in their selective enforcement against people of color.

That is not the purpose. Drugs are harmful. The problem is the idiots in charge don't realize that the drug war is even more harmful. And it's not selective enforcement, it's cops taking the easy path--it's much easier to bust a street dealer so that's who they tend to bust. Furthermore, in general the only way to the higher ups is to bust the low level people and get them to testify against their bosses.

This isn't screed. It's principles. It's the principle that says I have a right to subvert, destroy, and cut off the thumb that holds people down. They never stopped trying to own black people. They just changed the model of how they did it. They fuzzed the edges a bit. But it's still there if you have the bravery to see it. But my bet is on cowardice and continued willful blindness from the "very fine people".

The primary oppressors of black people today are black people and you have basically no hope of getting out from under that thumb until you figure out whose thumb it really is.

really?

This is not a meaningful reply.

 

[laughing dog]

So theft is fine? How would you feel if people came and took your stuff because they wanted it?



Except they weren't. The problem is one of attitude--to acquire the means of production you must live for the future, not for the now.



That is not the purpose. Drugs are harmful. The problem is the idiots in charge don't realize that the drug war is even more harmful. And it's not selective enforcement, it's cops taking the easy path--it's much easier to bust a street dealer so that's who they tend to bust. Furthermore, in general the only way to the higher ups is to bust the low level people and get them to testify against their bosses.

This isn't screed. It's principles. It's the principle that says I have a right to subvert, destroy, and cut off the thumb that holds people down. They never stopped trying to own black people. They just changed the model of how they did it. They fuzzed the edges a bit. But it's still there if you have the bravery to see it. But my bet is on cowardice and continued willful blindness from the "very fine people".

The primary oppressors of black people today are black people and you have basically no hope of getting out from under that thumb until you figure out whose thumb it really is.

really?

This is not a meaningful reply.

Then why did you make it?

 

[Derec]

Slave owners ran businesses which provided goods and services on a voluntary basis to the public. A slave uprising did destroy physical property of those businesses. Yet you say it was morally justified in that case, but not in these cases. Hmmm.

Target is not holding any slaves, so your comparison is idiotic.
You and Jarhyn are not even trying to hide your pro-theft stance here.

 

[Derec]

For those who are prattling on about how looting is "just as bad" as systemic racial oppression, read this:

Looting is bad, and "systemic racial oppression" is overblown by several orders of magnitude, no matter what some idiot with a Facebook account has to say.

 

[Derec]

Suspect accused of killing retired police captain once got 7-year prison sentence but didn’t serve one day

If you incentivize bad behavior, you get more bad behavior.

Exactly. People talk a lot about mass incarceration and reducing prison population, and there is some truth to that, but not incarcerating violent and serious offenders is misguided. Some people need to be locked up. As Richard Pryor said in one of his routines, "thank god for penitentiaries".

 

[ZiprHead]

Suspect accused of killing retired police captain once got 7-year prison sentence but didn’t serve one day

If you incentivize bad behavior, you get more bad behavior.

Exactly. People talk a lot about mass incarceration and reducing prison population, and there is some truth to that, but not incarcerating violent and serious offenders is misguided. Some people need to be locked up. As Richard Pryor said in one of his routines, "thank god for penitentiaries".

The same could be said for cops. They've had their bad behavior incentivised for many years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So theft is fine? How would you feel if people came and took your stuff because they wanted it?



Except they weren't. The problem is one of attitude--to acquire the means of production you must live for the future, not for the now.



That is not the purpose. Drugs are harmful. The problem is the idiots in charge don't realize that the drug war is even more harmful. And it's not selective enforcement, it's cops taking the easy path--it's much easier to bust a street dealer so that's who they tend to bust. Furthermore, in general the only way to the higher ups is to bust the low level people and get them to testify against their bosses.



The primary oppressors of black people today are black people and you have basically no hope of getting out from under that thumb until you figure out whose thumb it really is.

really?

This is not a meaningful reply.

Then why did you make it?

Quit trying to derail. You perfectly well know that I was saying "really" isn't a meaningful reply.

 

[laughing dog]

really?

This is not a meaningful reply.

Then why did you make it?

Quit trying to derail. You perfectly well know that I was saying "really" isn't a meaningful reply.

I know your last two posts are perfect examples of replies that are not meaningful.

"really" is an expression of disbelief. It can be interpreted as asking for evidence. Which is a meaningful reply.

It seems to me if anyone is derailing this thread, it is you.