POLL: Which aspects of the current civil disobedience do you support?

[ronburgundy]

This poll is about the degree of support for the various types of civil unrest happening in reaction to the Floyd murder.

If you think that racism-fueled police brutality is NOT even generally a problem in the US, then only select option 1.

The other options all assume that you do think racism-fueled police brutality is a problem in the US. Those options are ordered in degree of support for the property destruction and looting. For example, the 3rd option (which I chose) acknowledges that the initial riots in MN, especially prior to the murder charges, were an understandable, honest emotional reaction, but doesn't support all the delayed recent looting in other cities, being done out of criminal opportunism against innocent random victims. Option 4 and 5 accept looting even when done for opportunism (depending of race of whose doing it), while the last option rejects the very idea that any of the looting is being done for selfish opportunism.

Try to make your response about all the actual looting behaviors that are occurring, including against small mom and pop businesses, some of whom support the BLM cause and now will lose their business w/o riot insurance. This is in contrast to hypothetical "looting" against specific political/economic targets directly related to the injustice in question, such as the Boston Tea Party, or focused destruction specifically of police cars/equipment, etc.

 

[laughing dog]

Just a nitpick - a peaceful protest need not be a form of civil disobedience. But I think the poll and thread are a very good idea.

 

[RVonse]

This poll is about the degree of support for the various types of civil unrest happening in reaction to the Floyd murder.

If you think that racism-fueled police brutality is NOT even generally a problem in the US, then only select option 1.

The other options all assume that you do think racism-fueled police brutality is a problem in the US. Those options are ordered in degree of support for the property destruction and looting. For example, the 3rd option (which I chose) acknowledges that the initial riots in MN, especially prior to the murder charges, were an understandable, honest emotional reaction, but doesn't support all the delayed recent looting in other cities, being done out of criminal opportunism against innocent random victims. Option 4 and 5 accept looting even when done for opportunism (depending of race of whose doing it), while the last option rejects the very idea that any of the looting is being done for selfish opportunism.

Try to make your response about all the actual looting behaviors that are occurring, including against small mom and pop businesses, some of whom support the BLM cause and now will lose their business w/o riot insurance. This is in contrast to hypothetical "looting" against specific political/economic targets directly related to the injustice in question, such as the Boston Tea Party, or focused destruction specifically of police cars/equipment, etc.

The first option is very poorly worded. I do believe that police brutality is a big problem. But I do not believe it has anything to do with racism. And the data proves that is does not: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This poll is about the degree of support for the various types of civil unrest happening in reaction to the Floyd murder.

If you think that racism-fueled police brutality is NOT even generally a problem in the US, then only select option 1.

The other options all assume that you do think racism-fueled police brutality is a problem in the US. Those options are ordered in degree of support for the property destruction and looting. For example, the 3rd option (which I chose) acknowledges that the initial riots in MN, especially prior to the murder charges, were an understandable, honest emotional reaction, but doesn't support all the delayed recent looting in other cities, being done out of criminal opportunism against innocent random victims. Option 4 and 5 accept looting even when done for opportunism (depending of race of whose doing it), while the last option rejects the very idea that any of the looting is being done for selfish opportunism.

Try to make your response about all the actual looting behaviors that are occurring, including against small mom and pop businesses, some of whom support the BLM cause and now will lose their business w/o riot insurance. This is in contrast to hypothetical "looting" against specific political/economic targets directly related to the injustice in question, such as the Boston Tea Party, or focused destruction specifically of police cars/equipment, etc.

The first option is very poorly worded. I do believe that police brutality is a big problem. But I do not believe it has anything to do with racism. And the data proves that is does not: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

You do understand what a percentage is and its relevance when determine the significance of statistics?

Otherwise, whites commit much more violent crime in America than anyone else. And the stats prove it!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think you need to reword the third one to: I support the BLM focused peaceful protests (and self defense against police), and understand, but do not condone the property destruction that was part of an initial reaction of outrage

 

[Politesse]

"Support" seems like a really strong term? Like, I don't think looting is generally a good thing, but I do see it as kind of inevitable when there's rioting. Though unpleasant, it is one of the costs of civil disobedience, and civil disobedience is sometimes necessary. One of the reasons why policymakers ought to prevent rioting in the first place by ignoring systemic suffering for decades. I don't personally blame the looters; how could you really know how "pure" their intentions are? I do think that a looter should be subject to the laws of their nation concerning theft and its due punishment. I definitely do not believe in the oft-expressed principle that looters should be shot on sight. That's murder, and begets murder (I feel the same way about all forms of theft, not just looting; things are not worth more than people, and even if they were, everyone has a right to a jury trial before execution). I do not believe that the looters themselves are ultimately responsible for the act, which is essentially a crime of convenience that they should never have had the opportunity to commit in the first place, because we shouldn't need to riot in the streets in order to get justice for an unrelated murder in the first place.

Another note: BLM has been very consistent and publically demonstrative in its efforts to prevent looting, so whoever is responsible for it, white or black or whatever, it isn't that organization.

 

[J842P]

I picked option 3 as the best, although not perfect, fit. Let me elaborate.

Police brutality is a big problem in the United States. And yes it is racialized, but even if it weren't, it's a huge problem.

I generally don't support looting, although I think it's mostly just the unavoidable result of the sorts of demonstrations and rioting that is occurring. I watched the looting in Union Square in San Francisco, and to me some of it was very clearly organized and opportunistic, which is to be expected if you consider that these people probably knew that the protests that were occurring further away were essentially occupying most of the available police power.

I can get behind a lot of rioting, although not all.

 

[Jarhyn]

I picked option 3 as well. Generally, the most widespread and "zeitgeist" style destruction (as opposed to the opportunistic rioting and chaos following the initial wave of police abuse) has targeted exactly which businesses were the worst actors against communities of color: Target and Wells Fargo, and most specifically the Target store on lake street. As my housemate said, he's thankful that the store on Lake Street, where he was supposed to start at this Monday, got what it got. "Really, I'm thankful; I think I dodged a bullet there" "why, the profiling, program they had going?" "Yeah, that, but they were testing out facial recognition there, too."

Following that initial wave, all the instigation in the immediate area has been bad actors coming in from outside, generally with mismatched, stolen, out-of-state rental, or altogether missing plates and hidden VIN numbers. In these vehicles, are generally groups of white males, occasionally females. Some are armed and there have been shots fired every night within 20 blocks of where I live(a few times within 5 blocks) that is not related to gang activity.

I definitely dont support white nationalist terrorists coming in and shooting or burning people and businesses inmy community.

The rest though, the protests and general unrest, hell yes I support it. People are angry and with good reason.

 

[Terrell]

Police brutality & lack of sufficient accountability are two of our legal system's problems. I support peaceful protests against the police, and the rest of the legal system. I do not support violence against innocent people, theft, destruction of property, or any other crimes.

 

[Jarhyn]

Police brutality & lack of sufficient accountability are two of our legal system's problems. I support peaceful protests against the police, and the rest of the legal system. I do not support violence against innocent people, theft, destruction of property, or any other crimes.

Then you should be protesting the continued police brutality against peaceful protests, re DC and the church clearing. Do you object to the president's treatment of the protestors at the church there?

 

[ronburgundy]

I think you need to reword the third one to: I support the BLM focused peaceful protests (and self defense against police), and understand, but do not condone the property destruction that was part of an initial reaction of outrage

"Support" seems like a really strong term?

Yeah, I agree about the third option. I had put the "understandable" part in there to convey that some honest is "understandable" and maybe not even immoral, without viewing it positively as legitimate protest. But the word "support" is too strong for that option. . It is the right word for options 4-6, b/c there are those who defend looting, even of random targets, as legitimate civil disobedience, such as those who view this weeks looting as analogous to the Boston Tea Party.

I am pleasantly surprised at the lack of support for options 4-6, since I've seen many social media strongly defending looting and that Bostons Tea Party meme is everywhere.

 

[ronburgundy]

This poll is about the degree of support for the various types of civil unrest happening in reaction to the Floyd murder.

If you think that racism-fueled police brutality is NOT even generally a problem in the US, then only select option 1.

The other options all assume that you do think racism-fueled police brutality is a problem in the US. Those options are ordered in degree of support for the property destruction and looting. For example, the 3rd option (which I chose) acknowledges that the initial riots in MN, especially prior to the murder charges, were an understandable, honest emotional reaction, but doesn't support all the delayed recent looting in other cities, being done out of criminal opportunism against innocent random victims. Option 4 and 5 accept looting even when done for opportunism (depending of race of whose doing it), while the last option rejects the very idea that any of the looting is being done for selfish opportunism.

Try to make your response about all the actual looting behaviors that are occurring, including against small mom and pop businesses, some of whom support the BLM cause and now will lose their business w/o riot insurance. This is in contrast to hypothetical "looting" against specific political/economic targets directly related to the injustice in question, such as the Boston Tea Party, or focused destruction specifically of police cars/equipment, etc.

The first option is very poorly worded. I do believe that police brutality is a big problem. But I do not believe it has anything to do with racism. And the data proves that is does not: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

The statistics prove no such thing. Last year, only 57% more whites than blacks were shot by cops, while there are 600% more whites than blacks in the US. And crime rates of the races are useless since the same racism in question would lead to a massive over-estimate of black crime rates and under estimate of white crimes rates (since it's cops determining who is arrested).

And while racists love to use the expression "suicide by cop" when blacks get shot, the science suggest that whites would be far more likely to do so. There are clearly instances where armed people attack the cops in a "certain to be shot" scenario, aka "suicide by cop". But such behavior is determined by suicidal tendencies, which research shows are 4 times more common among white males than black males. This is critical b/c those scenarios are the ones where lethal force is the most justified. By definition, they are situation where the suspect has deliberately created a situation where they leave the cops little choice but to use force. Thus, without room for much discretion, those don't count as part of the "police brutality" problem. Since whites are more suicidal, removing those scenarios would remove disproportionately more whites, leaving a higher black:white ratio among those shot by cops in more questionable circumstances.

 

[Jokodo]

This poll is about the degree of support for the various types of civil unrest happening in reaction to the Floyd murder.

If you think that racism-fueled police brutality is NOT even generally a problem in the US, then only select option 1.

The other options all assume that you do think racism-fueled police brutality is a problem in the US. Those options are ordered in degree of support for the property destruction and looting. For example, the 3rd option (which I chose) acknowledges that the initial riots in MN, especially prior to the murder charges, were an understandable, honest emotional reaction, but doesn't support all the delayed recent looting in other cities, being done out of criminal opportunism against innocent random victims. Option 4 and 5 accept looting even when done for opportunism (depending of race of whose doing it), while the last option rejects the very idea that any of the looting is being done for selfish opportunism.

Try to make your response about all the actual looting behaviors that are occurring, including against small mom and pop businesses, some of whom support the BLM cause and now will lose their business w/o riot insurance. This is in contrast to hypothetical "looting" against specific political/economic targets directly related to the injustice in question, such as the Boston Tea Party, or focused destruction specifically of police cars/equipment, etc.

The first option is very poorly worded. I do believe that police brutality is a big problem. But I do not believe it has anything to do with racism. And the data proves that is does not: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

The statistics prove no such thing. Last year, only 57% more whites than blacks were shot by cops, while there are 600% more whites than blacks in the US. And crime rates of the races are useless since the same racism in question would lead to a massive over-estimate of black crime rates and under estimate of white crimes rates (since it's cops determining who is arrested).

And while racists love to use the expression "suicide by cop" when blacks get shot, the science suggest that whites would be far more likely to do so. There are clearly instances where armed people attack the cops in a "certain to be shot" scenario, aka "suicide by cop". But such behavior is determined by suicidal tendencies, which research shows are 4 times more common among white males than black males. This is critical b/c those scenarios are the ones where lethal force is the most justified. By definition, they are situation where the suspect has deliberately created a situation where they leave the cops little choice but to use force. Thus, without room for much discretion, those don't count as part of the "police brutality" problem. Since whites are more suicidal, removing those scenarios would remove disproportionately more whites, leaving a higher black:white ratio among those shot by cops in more questionable circumstances.

There's also the fact that whites are armed at much higher rates, so the argument that cops are just putting their own safety first works actually better with white suspects.

 

[Politesse]

I think you need to reword the third one to: I support the BLM focused peaceful protests (and self defense against police), and understand, but do not condone the property destruction that was part of an initial reaction of outrage

"Support" seems like a really strong term?

Yeah, I agree about the third option. I had put the "understandable" part in there to convey that some honest is "understandable" and maybe not even immoral, without viewing it positively as legitimate protest. But the word "support" is too strong for that option. . It is the right word for options 4-6, b/c there are those who defend looting, even of random targets, as legitimate civil disobedience, such as those who view this weeks looting as analogous to the Boston Tea Party.

I am pleasantly surprised at the lack of support for options 4-6, since I've seen many social media strongly defending looting and that Bostons Tea Party meme is everywhere.

I would see vandalism of, say, a Minneapolis police station as analogous to the Tea Party. Random opportunistic looting of the local 5 and 10, not so much. Mind you, I'm not one to over-valorize the original Tea Party either. In fact, destroying something in protest of a murder might be more morally justifiable than doing it to whine about tax policy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I understand when there is violence directed at those actually doing the oppression, the government entities such as the police station or other government buildings. I won't say I support it because I don't want to be quoted on it. I do not understand and do oppose violence against 3rd parties.

Sometimes protests aren't peaceful, but looting Target because of police wrongdoing isn't a protest. I do not think the protestors and the looters are the same people. I think looters come out at protests to take advantage of the confusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And while racists love to use the expression "suicide by cop" when blacks get shot, the science suggest that whites would be far more likely to do so. There are clearly instances where armed people attack the cops in a "certain to be shot" scenario, aka "suicide by cop". But such behavior is determined by suicidal tendencies, which research shows are 4 times more common among white males than black males. This is critical b/c those scenarios are the ones where lethal force is the most justified. By definition, they are situation where the suspect has deliberately created a situation where they leave the cops little choice but to use force. Thus, without room for much discretion, those don't count as part of the "police brutality" problem. Since whites are more suicidal, removing those scenarios would remove disproportionately more whites, leaving a higher black:white ratio among those shot by cops in more questionable circumstances.

There are two different types of suicide-by-cop:

1) The person who is suicidal and sets out to deliberately provoke a cop into shooting them.

2) The person who is not suicidal but considers death preferable to the long stint in jail they know is coming if they are arrested.