Now #BLMers are rioting in Minneapolis after black murderer kills himself

[prideandfall]

keep tilting, you beautiful snowflakes.
sooner or later those windmills are gonna give up, i just know it.

 

[ruby sparks]

"Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?" - Thomas Sowell

If you don't take into account that the wrongs that happened in the (fairly recent) past have legacy effects that continue to this day which need to be acknowledged and specifically addressed, or if you minimise or discount the extent to which the racial bias still continues, albeit in a lesser way, you are an integral part of the current problem. Personally, I would hold you, and people with your attitudes, partly and indirectly responsible for this mess, at least in a small way. And yes, obviously, it is also true that others, such as rioters and many black people, are also responsible. But your 'it ain't me, it's them' doesn't wash, and just makes things worse. If you really want things to get better in your country, and you want to be part of the solution for everyone, you have to budge a bit more from where you're currently at, imo, and I would say you are shirking your obligations if you don't. So take that index finger and point it back at yourself sometimes.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Um, what does this have to do with looting after a murder suspect kills himself?

everything.

it's what the cabal of racists on this forum are utterly incapable of understanding: this isn't a simple reaction to an incident in a vacuum. it's hilarious to me the extent to which a pack of white people are unable to grasp the idea that rioting and looting are the obvious and inevitable result of people no longer giving a shit about restraining themselves for the sake of the social contract, because they're not getting their end of the deal from it.

it's a really simple premise:
there is no feasible way to have private property without society at large collectively all agreeing to let people have private property - as in, there's no way to enforce the idea from a logistics standpoint.
private ownership of wealth and property only happens when everyone else agrees to let it happen, because the natural state biological life dictates that if so-and-so has resources and you don't, you just murder him in the fucking face (if you can) and take his resources.
it's a monumental act of collective will to have this idea that one individual can have nothing and be in desperate need, and look at someone with a ridiculous excess of resources, and not take their stuff by force.
that act of will only works if a given person is still better off than they would be alone in the wilds, all things considered... the social contract that protects private property is also supposed to supply resources to everyone so that everyone's life is improved by adhering to the contract.

if you fuck with that dynamic, if you expect others to follow the rules that protect you while systematically refusing them the benefits which are owed them by following the contract, this is the inevitable result.

Why are you making excuses for bad behavior? Is it your view that some people should be treated as infantile children, lacking agency, incapable of acting to the standards we expect of everyone else?

Excuses? I think you might have misunderstood the point?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

You’re the one making excuses, not me.

yes you are.

Okay. So next time a homicide suspect kills himself to avoid arrest, I’ll remember that prideandfall approves my looting downtown in response.

Irony or idiocy? You decide

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except for the little problem that that desperate need isn't real beyond what's self-inflicted by choosing a life of crime.

"choosing a life of crime"

and that, folks, is a level of ignorance and delusion that there is simply no way to logic someone out of.

Choosing.

Not everyone in the inner cities is a criminal. Survival is certainly possible without turning to crime.

 

[prideandfall]

Choosing.

Not everyone in the inner cities is a criminal. Survival is certainly possible without turning to crime.

so here is what i don't get:
ostensibly the US is the most (or near to it) developed, resource rich, land rich, scientifically advanced society in the history of the human race. there is an obscene excess of resources both physical and financial, bursting at the seams in segments of our country... it was just recently announced jeff besos is worth over 200 billion. we have several billionaires. we have dozens of companies routinely making hundreds of billions in profit yearly.

and yet, your standard that you're setting for living in the most opulent civilization this planet has ever witnessed is "survival" - not actively starving to death.
that's it? that's the best you can do? the most you can aspire to is that living in this absolute *ocean* of resources is "don't die too early due to lack of food"

well i for one find that fucking pathetic.

 

[Derec]

and yet, your standard that you're setting for living in the most opulent civilization this planet has ever witnessed is "survival" - not actively starving to death.
that's it? that's the best you can do? the most you can aspire to is that living in this absolute *ocean* of resources is "don't die too early due to lack of food"

Just because you live in what you describe as an "ocean of resources" does not give you the right to steal what is not yours.
Vast majority of people make lives for themselves that are far beyond mere survival by working for a living. And we as a society recognize that some people can't work so there are government programs such as social security disability, housing subsidies etc. that provide a life beyond mere survival (but admittedly not a very nice life if you don't have other resources).

But there are people who want nice things, the overpriced Nike sneakers endorsed by some overpaid and underworked ball player, or the latest iPhone or something more expensive like a Merc or a Caddy, without working for it. So they resort to stealing, robbing etc. So, yes, engaging in crime is still very much a choice.

 

[Derec]

"Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?" - Thomas Sowell

If you don't take into account that the wrongs that happened in the (fairly recent) past have legacy effects that continue to this day which need to be acknowledged and specifically addressed, or if you minimise or discount the extent to which the racial bias still continues, albeit in a lesser way, you are an integral part of the current problem.

You are not addressing Sowell's point. The Left minimizes responsibility by people burning down buildings or looting things but at the same time they treat all white people as responsible for what some other white people did in the past.

Now, yes, there have been wrongs that happened in the past. But for how long should those wrongs be used as an excuse? For 50 years now blacks are enjoying preferential treatment in college and grad school admissions and also hiring esp. for government jobs under the guise of "affirmative action". How can you have that huge amount of privilege and still claim that blacks are somehow oppressed in this country?

Personally, I would hold you, and people with your attitudes, partly and indirectly responsible for this mess, at least in a small way. And yes, obviously, it is also true that others, such as rioters and many black people, are also responsible. But your 'it ain't me, it's them' doesn't wash, and just makes things worse. If you really want things to get better in your country, and you want to be part of the solution for everyone, you have to budge a bit more from where you're currently at, imo, and I would say you are shirking your obligations if you don't. So take that index finger and point it back at yourself sometimes.

Trausti (or I for that matter) is not in any way responsible for this rioting/looting etc. The rioters, looters and arsonists are.
We will never fix race relations in this country while blacks are assigned to a separate box - different standards for college admissions, different societal privileges (words only black can use, so-called "cultural appropriation" nonsense, can't criticize #BLM without risking losing your job etc.) are driving a wedge through the people and are dividing us by race. It will not stop under the prescription the Left has - the perpetual divisions into the white oppressors and POC "oppressed" is getting us nowhere. We had 50-60 years of left-wing politicians and academicians driving and dominating the racial policies and discourse, and where has it taken us? Nowhere good! It is time for a fundamental rethink of the problem and of the solutions!

 

[Derec]

The rioter apologists on here don't care about people like them.

 

[Derec]

Except for the little problem that that desperate need isn't real beyond what's self-inflicted by choosing a life of crime.

"choosing a life of crime"

and that, folks, is a level of ignorance and delusion that there is simply no way to logic someone out of.

It's a choice. It's ignorant to think it's not. When Eddie Sole decided to kill another man, he made a choice. When the rioters and looters decided react to his suicide by smashing some businesses and stealing stuff that doesn't belong to them, they likewise made choices. We are all defined by our choices, for better or for worse.

 

[Derec]

is it your view that people should be forced into slavery and tortured routinely to keep them in a state of constant fear in order to quell disobedience?

Who is talking about forcing anybody into slavery? However, people who feel entitled to riot and loot needs to be put in a state of having more fear of rightful consequences of their actions. The City of Minneapolis and the County of Hennepin must do more to catch and prosecute these rioters, looters etc. to the full extent of the law, but I have no confidence they will follow through on it. Otherwise, there is no disincentive to do it again, and again, at the slightest perceived provocation, like a murderer committing suicide because he doesn't want to go to jail.

 

[prideandfall]

Just because you live in what you describe as an "ocean of resources" does not give you the right to steal what is not yours.

firstly, i'm not sure what you're referring to by either 'right' or 'steal' or 'not yours' especially in the context of replying to the bit of text you had quoted.

if you're talking about private property, as in looting, i would contend that whether or not it's 'right' (in terms of civilized society) is irrelevant because the context at hand has to do with a breaking of the essential underpinning of the social contract that establishes the existence of private property in the first place. if there is no social covenant which establishes the protection of private property in the first place, then taking something by force is no longer an issue of right or wrong and simply one of might.

if you're talking about the collective wealth of a society at large, since humans are herd animals and the entire functional purpose of a herd in the first place is the sharing of resources for the betterment of all members of the group.
this is diametrically opposed to profit driven capitalism, which necessarily requires the exclusion of resources to the many for the excess of the few.
so if we're arguing about the concept of 'rights' (which are purely intellectual abstracts) i would say that the 'right' of the members of the herd to their share of the benefit of being in the herd trumps the 'right' of individuals within the herd to horde more resources than they can ever physically expend.

secondly, this isn't about 'stealing' anyways so your entire point is moot regardless of which way you meant it.

Vast majority of people make lives for themselves that are far beyond mere survival by working for a living. And we as a society recognize that some people can't work so there are government programs such as social security disability, housing subsidies etc. that provide a life beyond mere survival (but admittedly not a very nice life if you don't have other resources).

and you got it in the first 3 words: the vast majority.
we're not talking about the vast majority, so that doesn't matter.

But there are people who want nice things, the overpriced Nike sneakers endorsed by some overpaid and underworked ball player, or the latest iPhone or something more expensive like a Merc or a Caddy, without working for it. So they resort to stealing, robbing etc. So, yes, engaging in crime is still very much a choice.

irrelevant, since this isn't about living a moderate (if unexceptional) life in a 1st world country and just wanting bling for the sake of materialism - your point has no merit and no relevance because it's not about anything that is actually happening.

 

[Derec]

Um, what does this have to do with looting after a murder suspect kills himself?

everything.

it's what the cabal of racists on this forum are utterly incapable of understanding:

Isn't calling fellow members "racist" a violation of TOU?

this isn't a simple reaction to an incident in a vacuum.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. At the same time, previous grievances are not a valid excuse for wrongdoing today. Each action must be considered by its own merits. And for example looting a Target or a Vietnamese restaurant is not justifiable no matter what what!

it's hilarious to me the extent to which a pack of white people are unable to grasp the idea that rioting and looting are the obvious and inevitable result of people no longer giving a shit about restraining themselves for the sake of the social contract, because they're not getting their end of the deal from it.

Oh, bullshit! They are getting plenty out of it. I mean, what is it that you think they are not getting? What they want is free stuff without working for it. Sorry, but that is not part of the social contract. Society doesn't owe you a Gucci headband or whatever you looted from the mall just because you have a dark skin color!

it's a really simple premise:
there is no feasible way to have private property without society at large collectively all agreeing to let people have private property - as in, there's no way to enforce the idea from a logistics standpoint.
private ownership of wealth and property only happens when everyone else agrees to let it happen, because the natural state of biological life dictates that if so-and-so has resources and you don't, you just murder him in the fucking face (if you can) and take his resources.

Well not everyone else. There have always been lawbreakers. We lock those people up, we do not make excuses for their behavior.

it's a monumental act of collective will to have this idea that one individual can have nothing and be in desperate need, and look at someone with a ridiculous excess of resources, and not take their stuff by force.

You have not shown that these looters have a "desperate need" for the stuff they looted. They are looting because of the fucked up #BLM ideology, not because of need.

that act of will only works if a given person is still better off than they would be alone in the wilds, all things considered... the social contract that protects private property is also supposed to supply resources to everyone so that everyone's life is improved by adhering to the contract.

US has a great deal of government programs. Not as much as Europe or Canada, but still a lot. That is not it. These people are not desperate for necessities.

if you fuck with that dynamic, if you expect others to follow the rules that protect you while systematically refusing them the benefits which are owed them by following the contract, this is the inevitable result.

Except that your analysis fails because there is no evidence of "desperate need" driving these riots.

 

[prideandfall]

Except that your analysis fails because there is no evidence of "desperate need" driving these riots.

i did not mean that wording in that context, i was using "desperate need" in more broad terms to illustrate the point about the social contract.
someone homeless and going hungry looking at someone at a wendy's and not just strolling up and stabbing the in the face and taking their burger.

 

[Derec]

it's almost like the central underpinning of civilization as we know it is the social contract and the consent of the governed, since there is absolutely no logistical way to physically enforce social order on even a tiny segment of the population once it decides to stop abiding by it.

You seem to be advocating giving in to the rioters and looters instead of arresting and prosecuting them.

Would you have the same opinion if say pro-lifers started burning down abortion clinics and looting businesses around them? Would you advocate passing an abortion ban to appease them?
And if a bunch of anti-gay people decided to riot and loot and "burn this bitch down" over gay marriage would you advocate giving in to them and recriminalize homosexuality?
Or does that only work for political violence from the left?

so, logically, it would be a really good idea to ensure that the social covenant that is the lynch pin of human society is in full effect for everyone, and to not be completely surprised if a specific segment of the population doesn't get the full benefit of that social contract and decides to stop holding up their end of it without receiving the full measure of their due.

What do you consider "full benefit" and "full measure of their due"? Please be specific instead of waxing poetic!

collectively, white people have been shitting on black people for about as long as white people have known black people exist. frankly i'm astonished that it took this long of being pushed before they started pushing back.

Bullshit. Yes, there has been some horrible treatment in the past. But for the last 50 years, black people are advantaged in many areas of society. Note that these riots are driven mostly by young people whose parents, let along themselves, were not alive during Jim Crow!
Whatever happened in the past does not justify violence today.
And what is your solution? These bouts of violence are triggered not by economic need but by policing - police were seeking Eddie Sole for murder, so he killed himself. Police were trying to arrest Jacob Blake for felony warrants and he resisted, and went for his car, which led to him being shot. So what would be your solution to appease these anti-police rioters? Make black people exempt from following laws such as laws against killing people or against sexually assaulting people?
No, the real solution is to arrest and prosecute these rioters to the full extent of the law. Instead too many fauxgressive cities are coddling them and dismiss most charges and this is the inevitable result. This has been building steam since the Michael Brown I35 blockades in Minneapolis. I told you guys then that this will end badly if the extremists are allowed to take over the interstate with no consequences, and now the city is reaping the whirlwind of the inaction then.

 

[Derec]

i did not mean that wording in that context, i was using "desperate need" in more broad terms to illustrate the point about the social contract.

Linking it to economic need muddled your message then, since I am not really sure what it is. So please, be specific. What do you think these rioters are entitled to from the "social contract" that they are not getting?

someone homeless and going hungry looking at someone at a wendy's and not just strolling up and stabbing the in the face and taking their burger.

There are food pantries. There are food stamps. There are even people who will gladly buy you a combo at Wendys for the asking. Nobody needs to stab anybody in the US for a damn hamburger!

 

[prideandfall]

You seem to be advocating giving in to the rioters and looters instead of arresting and prosecuting them.

not at all - i'm saying that being safe from looting and rioting is a privilege conferred only by the strictures of the social contract, and that failing to abide by that contract will inevitably result in others failing to abide by it as well in ways which are detrimental to you.
this isn't about excusing behavior, but explaining it.

What do you consider "full benefit" and "full measure of their due"? Please be specific instead of waxing poetic!

so, i'm a white male living in a large city - i have a highly marketable job skill in a field that is basically immune to economic turmoil or global circumstance, and that pays fairly well to live a life of moderate comfort while also saving up a bit every month.
i have every advantage one could imagine on being successful: i hate children so never had them, i've never gotten married or entangled in family drama, i'm not materialistic and thus have little to no needs or desire for 'stuff' that drain my resources.

i would consider my life to be absolute barest minimum that it's reasonable for someone living in a 1st world country to have - stable housing, excess income, zero fear of any government agency or policing body, my expectation for life is that as long as i put in a little bit of effort everything will work out in my favor, and that's how it's played out over my 40 years.

that is the full benefit of the social contract and i would consider that to be the due owed to everyone living in the U.S.

Bullshit.

antfood.

Yes, there has been some horrible treatment in the past. But for the last 50 years, black people are advantaged in many areas of society. Note that these riots are driven mostly by young people whose parents, let along themselves, were not alive during Jim Crow!

this is quite possibly one of the absolute fucking stupidest sequences of words ever spewed out by something with a supposedly functioning pre-frontal cortex.

 

[prideandfall]

There are food pantries. There are food stamps.

food pantries and food stamps are piddling failures by a decadent society to fulfill its nominal function, not viable alternatives to a problem..

There are even people who will gladly buy you a combo at Wendys for the asking. Nobody needs to stab anybody in the US for a damn hamburger!

firstly, people being willing to give up personal resources out of guilt or pity or whatever is a piddling failure by a decadent society to fulfill its nominal function, not viable alternatives to a problem.
secondly, "nobody needs to stab anybody" is an assumption from a position of receiving the full benefit of the social contract, so your assertion is without merit.

 

[prideandfall]

Isn't calling fellow members "racist" a violation of TOU?

i'm not calling fellow members racist, merely pointing out there is a cabal of them.

 

[Derec]

firstly, i'm not sure what you're referring to by either 'right' or 'steal' or 'not yours' especially in the context of replying to the bit of text you had quoted.

I am using the words in the regular sense of these words, not some "critical race theory" twisted meaning of them. And the context is not just the "ocean of resources" quote but your apologia for rioting and looting in general.

if you're talking about private property, as in looting, i would contend that whether or not it's 'right' (in terms of civilized society) is irrelevant because the context at hand has to do with a breaking of the essential underpinning of the social contract that establishes the existence of private property in the first place.

Not if they get caught and charged (and hopefully convicted) for burglary and property damage.
That's the solution to this. More arrests and more prosecutions. Instead Minneapolis wants to abolish their police department. It's exactly the wrong move if you want to have a civilized society!

if there is no social covenant which establishes the protection of private property in the first place, then taking something by force is no longer an issue of right or wrong and simply one of might.

But the social order did not break down in Minneapolis, at least not yet, since they haven't gotten around to abolishing police yet.
I guess this riot is the preview of coming attractions if the politicians of Minneapolis do not unfuck themselves real fast. Or else they will be in a world of shit.

if you're talking about the collective wealth of a society at large, since humans are herd animals and the entire functional purpose of a herd in the first place is the sharing of resources for the betterment of all members of the group.

First of all, we are pack animals, not herd animals. Second, what you seem to be advocating here is communism.

this is diametrically opposed to profit driven capitalism, which necessarily requires the exclusion of resources to the many for the excess of the few.

Capitalism has actually done a lot to lift the many out of poverty. An average food stamp recipient in the US is better off than what passed for middle class person in the USSR.

so if we're arguing about the concept of 'rights' (which are purely intellectual abstracts) i would say that the 'right' of the members of the herd to their share of the benefit of being in the herd trumps the 'right' of individuals within the herd to horde more resources than they can ever physically expend.

The word you are looking for is "hoard" but sure, we are definitely more of a horde than a herd. And even among non-human animals there are hierarchies and inequalities. That is not an invention of capitalism. What capitalism did is increase the total size of the pie, so even if Jeff Bezos has 0.2 terabucks of wealth, that does not mean that the hoi poloi are worse off than a society where the Jeff Bezoses are sent to the Gulag instead. Quite the opposite!

secondly, this isn't about 'stealing' anyways so your entire point is moot regardless of which way you meant it.

It is definitely stealing. What do you think looting is? Undocumented borrowing?

irrelevant, since this isn't about living a moderate (if unexceptional) life in a 1st world country and just wanting bling for the sake of materialism - your point has no merit and no relevance because it's not about anything that is actually happening.

Huh? You brought up desperate needs and sharing of oceans of wealth. What do you think all this is about anyway?