• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

White people riot too...

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
Only when they do it, it's for no reason at all--like losing a fucking game they didn't actually play--or, worse, to blame it on blacks:

Looting by Black people, whether during the protests of police brutality or in an effort to obtain food and supplies during natural disasters, has long been a popular media narrative— further perpetuating the stereotype of Black people in America as inherently lawless. Because of this, it is significant that we’re now seeing widespread recognition that looting and unnecessary destruction of property happening at Black Lives Matter and other anti-police brutality protests are not solely, or even predominantly, being carried out by Black protestors. In fact, thanks to camera phones, we have a plethora of video evidence to the contrary.
...
After Saturday’s protest in downtown Seattle led to the looting of the Nordstrom flagship store, a white woman was seen on the local news walking out of the store with bags full of merchandise. The anchor, however, never refers to her as a looter and even floats the idea of her possibly being an employee — a consideration that would likely not have been given to a non-white woman.

A thread by Twitter user @FreeYourMindKid reveals exhaustive documentation of these instances, including a Black woman in Minneapolis confronting two white men who’d stolen alcohol from a liquor store that’d been broken into. When she asks one of the men why he was out there and what was his name, he responds, “Definitely not George Floyd.”

And, of course, there's even a pet name some have adopted ("boogaloos"), but it's really just a rehash of Manson's Helter Skelter, which, of course, is far, far worse, because it has a political agenda behind it that goes way beyond mere opportunistic exploits of a few individuals and into an organized agenda.
 
and if they started looting Lumpy would still favor shooting them in the act.
 
Or just occupy federal land with AR-15s and insinuate high levels of violence if the federales dare enforce the law...
 
Only when they do it, it's for no reason at all--like losing a fucking game they didn't actually play--or, worse, to .

Hell, white people riot when their team wins a game.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42943824
In Europe, white people riot just because there is a game (usually a continental tournament). And i'm not talking just burning stuff, going out and beating people up... because a team in their neighborhood is playing in Italy.
 
Or just occupy federal land with AR-15s and insinuate high levels of violence if the federales dare enforce the law...
... in protest to a Federal judge up'ing the sentence to people that broke the law to be in line with mandatory sentencing. Mandatory is White Latin for "mandatory for minorities".
 
Reporters don't like to call someone a looter without proof of looting, that's risking defamation lawsuits. See them looting, fine, call them looters. See them with stuff, don't call them looters. I'm thinking of a widely-circulated pair of pictures from Katrina. The black guy was described as a looter, the white guy wasn't. What's missing is the photographer who shot the picture of the black guy saw him take the stuff, the photographer (different guy) who took the picture of the white guy saw him grab the stuff just floating by.
 
Reporters don't like to call someone a looter without proof of looting, that's risking defamation lawsuits. See them looting, fine, call them looters. See them with stuff, don't call them looters. I'm thinking of a widely-circulated pair of pictures from Katrina. The black guy was described as a looter, the white guy wasn't. What's missing is the photographer who shot the picture of the black guy saw him take the stuff, the photographer (different guy) who took the picture of the white guy saw him grab the stuff just floating by.

What about the pictures from Katrina in which people are seen coming out of grocery stores with bags full of goods but only the black ones were called looters? The white ones were 'finding' needed supplies.

Hurricane Katrina ‘Looting’ Photographs Captioned Differently Based on Race
 
In fairness, quite a lot of white people are "rioting" in the name of social justice right now. We're not all devoid of moral values.
 
Or just occupy federal land with AR-15s and insinuate high levels of violence if the federales dare enforce the law...
... in protest to a Federal judge up'ing the sentence to people that broke the law to be in line with mandatory sentencing. Mandatory is White Latin for "mandatory for minorities".
'White Latin'...lol, that is good. Kind of like Insys, ex-CEO John Kapoor, being sentenced to only 5.5 years for purposely and knowingly getting thousands addicted to opoides, so he could make better quarterly profits. Zeus knows how many people he directly helped ruin their lives and even killed (overdosed). But hey shoot a (black) guy for running with a toaster...he's obviously dangerous.
 
Reporters don't like to call someone a looter without proof of looting, that's risking defamation lawsuits. See them looting, fine, call them looters. See them with stuff, don't call them looters. I'm thinking of a widely-circulated pair of pictures from Katrina. The black guy was described as a looter, the white guy wasn't. What's missing is the photographer who shot the picture of the black guy saw him take the stuff, the photographer (different guy) who took the picture of the white guy saw him grab the stuff just floating by.

What about the pictures from Katrina in which people are seen coming out of grocery stores with bags full of goods but only the black ones were called looters? The white ones were 'finding' needed supplies.

Hurricane Katrina ‘Looting’ Photographs Captioned Differently Based on Race

Your evidence does not support your argument. Those were the exact photos I was referring to. Snopes is correct in saying the captioning is true, what Snopes missed is that the captions were accurate.
 
The root cause of looting and other crime.

Only when they do it, it's for no reason at all--like losing a fucking game they didn't actually play--or, worse, to blame it on blacks:

Looting by Black people, whether during the protests of police brutality or in an effort to obtain food and supplies during natural disasters, has long been a popular media narrative— further perpetuating the stereotype of Black people in America as inherently lawless. Because of this, it is significant that we’re now seeing widespread recognition that looting and unnecessary destruction of property happening at Black Lives Matter and other anti-police brutality protests are not solely, or even predominantly, being carried out by Black protestors. In fact, thanks to camera phones, we have a plethora of video evidence to the contrary.
...
After Saturday’s protest in downtown Seattle led to the looting of the Nordstrom flagship store, a white woman was seen on the local news walking out of the store with bags full of merchandise. The anchor, however, never refers to her as a looter and even floats the idea of her possibly being an employee — a consideration that would likely not have been given to a non-white woman.

A thread by Twitter user @FreeYourMindKid reveals exhaustive documentation of these instances, including a Black woman in Minneapolis confronting two white men who’d stolen alcohol from a liquor store that’d been broken into. When she asks one of the men why he was out there and what was his name, he responds, “Definitely not George Floyd.”

And, of course, there's even a pet name some have adopted ("boogaloos"), but it's really just a rehash of Manson's Helter Skelter, which, of course, is far, far worse, because it has a political agenda behind it that goes way beyond mere opportunistic exploits of a few individuals and into an organized agenda.

and if they started looting Lumpy would still favor shooting them in the act.

Nah, no one would ever favor such a thing -- get your facts straight. You can't give an example of anyone ever saying that.

We all know it violates the U.S. Constitution to ever shoot anyone, no matter what they're doing, because it deprives them of life without due process of law.

Also, a criminal must never be shot because it only inspires others to commit more violence, and so creates a cycle of violence with no end. Studies show that all violent crime throughout history was caused by this cycle of violence beginning when police were first given weapons to shoot criminals. Except for this there would never have been any violent crime.
 
repoman said it, not me

and if they started looting, Lumpy would still favor shooting them in the act.

Nah, no one would ever favor such a thing -- get your facts straight. You can't give an example of anyone ever saying that.

But now that you've put the idea out there, to chew on, I'm beginning to like it -- thanks for suggesting it. I'll try to give you credit for introducing this innovative idea into the discussion instead of claiming credit for it myself.
 
Last edited:
Why would you not want to claim it?

Imo, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the proposal. There are only questions about justification and consequences.

Basically, the suggestion involves making what is usually considered to be a case for imposing a strong form of Martial Law, in which the normal laws and processes are allowed to be temporarily suspended, by those in higher authority, for the overall good and security of the country, jurisdiction or zone. And shooting looters (or rioters) has been in some cases, as far as I know, considered an allowable option, under such a law, once it is actioned, including in the USA.

So as long as you realise it's not actually totally a new or innovative idea..........

ETA: As far as I am aware, it has never been invoked in the UK (I stand to be corrected). In Ireland, there is provision for it, in what are deemed states of emergency, but capital punishment specifically is not permitted even then, as I understand it. In some other countries, perhaps including the USA (I'm not sure) it seems to be a bit ambiguous as to whether summary capital punishment is allowed under Martial Law. In places such as Iran, for example, I believe it is allowed and has been carried out (shootings I mean) of protesters in that case, not necessarily looters or rioters. That was in 1978. By contrast, Iceland has no legal provisions for it at all.

Historically, going back a bit, it has apparently (I read) often been abused, and sometimes used as a way to legally shoot troublesome, protesting minorities (eg in Australia in 1820).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom