Native Minnesotan here — living in Minneapolis — that has lived on both coasts:
With all that's happening the last few days, please don't generally associate Minnesotans with the violent riots that have captured the attention of everyone. The peacefulness of the protests and gatherings has been overshadowed by the violence. There are countless examples of Minnesotans standing up to those who choose to loot and destroy the innocent. Those images are being overlooked.
What happened is awful. These violent riots, and the violent images aren't reflective of Minnesotans at large. The violence doesn't reflect how genuinely upset people in Minnesota feel about what happened and greater the movement at large. There will always be edge-cases as there is with any situation in any context. But for everyone that I've known, for everyone I've met and encountered with in Minnesota, when I look back at my time spent on either coast I always have found the people in Minnesota to be most great.
I have friends and colleagues asking me "what's going on with everyone in Minnesota?" and I have to explain to them that these images aren't representative of the place I call home and my neighbors I call my friends.
There are businesses that didn't do anything wrong which have have been effectively `rm -rf` because of a small group of bad actors. The Target on Lake Street didn't do anything. Banadir Pharmacy didn't do anything. Seward Pharmacy didn't do anything. The pawn shop didn't do anything. The WIC office didn't do anything. The liquor stores didn't do anything. MoneyGram didn't do anything. The tobacco store didn't do anything. Disrupting those businesses and the livelihoods of their employees and owners doesn't prove a point.
But burning down the precinct? Yeah, I can get behind that.
> With all that's happening the last few days, please don't associate Minnesotans with the riots that have captured the attention of everyone.
I understand what you're going for, but this is a bad approach. People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things, they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard. What you're saying here reads as "don't listen to them, they don't represent us" which is ... exactly the point.
We need to collectively shut the hell up for 5 minutes and just listen. Maybe if we actually did that, these riots wouldn't be happening.
He may be the poster boy of the chaos but I assure you, as someone who has been in these streets, he is not alone. Please, come join us and you can see for yourself.
There are countless innocent business owners who were ransacked, who were had their livelihoods changed that would beg to differ with you.
I understand the concept of being loud to be heard. I understand making a statement. I understand burning down the precinct.
What I don't understand is looting independent pharmacies, liquor stores, and restaurants to steal inventory and merchandize and break into safes.
Your tweet links to an unmasking of a police officer committing false-flag violence in order to justify counter-violence towards protestors and rioters.
People are rioting because they are angry. It happens that people are constantly, very gently, angry at the entire capitalist complex. When people riot, therefore they are going to burn down the capitalist complex, because it irritates them and they are in a provocative mood.
>Your tweet links to an unmasking of a police officer committing false-flag violence in order to justify counter-violence towards protestors and rioters.
Please link some proof or stop spreading this rumor on HN.
>White guy breaks windows and.. walks away? Holds an umbrella?
Is this evidence that he's a cop or just your imagination?
There's a very short list of what that person can be:
Either the video is fake or real. Let's pretend it's real.
Either the video is staged or not.
* if staged, then this is a person trying to spread the idea that there are agent provocateurs
* if not staged, then this is a real person that did this
If this is a real person that did this, then:
* they either did it of their own free will, or
* there is a group of people encouraging them to do it.
If they did it of their own free will, then either:
* they want to steal things
* they want to break things
* they want to get back at Autozone
* they want to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* they want to _start_ violence in the protest at that location
If they did it as part of a group effort, then they were either coerced or not; but, in both cases, the intention of the group that caused it is what matters:
* the group wanted someone to steal things / break things / get back at autozone
* the group wanted to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* the group wanted to _start_ violence in the protest at that location.
Then you need to look at the probabilities of each of these situations, especially the person themselves and their attire.
I think it's reasonable to conclude either:
* this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
* somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
* it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
Did I miss any combination?
2 of that final set are especially bad, in my opinion; and, they're sufficiently likely as to not rule them, out.
( edit: formatting )
edit: sorry, I did miss one:
* he's trying to cause an insurance claim for the autozone
> * this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
> * somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
> * it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
This is not reasonable at all.
2/3 options assume that this is an agent provocateur, which, again, no evidence has been produced to support, which was the entire point in the first place.
Again, someone please produce evidence that this person was a cop or agent provocateur, or stop posting this rumor.
"Current manchild of the hour" has been identified as a police officer in plain clothes in other threads...
There are a lot of provocateurs and I don't think we can align any of their motives with those of the protesters. Many are trying to create a justification for violence against the protesters. Some are just "break shit and get free stuff".
Source for that? It's possible but it looked like white as antifa black block kid. The style is literally the same what they do all around the world during the G20 etc. meetings.
Does rioting destroy things? Yes. But read that sentence from me again: "People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things".
People are rioting because they see this as the only way forward, not because they want a new TV. They may get that TV in the process, but it's not the motivation.
It’s is wildly racist that this comment, and many other comments on here, are far more focused on the rioters than the murder that occurred on a sidewalk in broad daylight.
Also racist is the indifference to these riots, when their cost falls on the same minorities they ostensibly are in protection of. Look at Detroit. Look at Newark. Any wealth that might have been accumulating in the black communities of Minneapolis has just evaporated.
>they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard.
This is almost the exact same phrase that MLK used, and it makes complete sense. If we use violence (implicit or explicit) to exclude people from "polite" discourse, they will find other ways to communicate.
> People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things, they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard.
That's not why people are looting liquor stores and target. Some people are just destroying things, there's always those groups of people in every riot. Sometimes people even travel to the riot just for the chance at destroying things.
I find it really sad that Target and other stores damaged in the protests may never return. Insurance and risk assessment may unfortunately decide reopening in a certain area is too dangerous.
Who knows, but the protests were noore violent than when white militiamen stormed the statehouse two weeks ago.. and yet the cops shot tear gas plastic bullets into the crowd anyway.
Police abuse of power and brutality happens every day and mainstream America doesn't bat an eye. But you burn down one Target... and all of a sudden everyone loses their minds!
Did blocking cafe counters work? Look outside: did it work??
My racism. Hahah. I love this tactic - no YOU'RE the racist cause uhh, oh, I know, low expectations!
What low expectations? I AGREE that it's great that people are burning down police stations and looting massive capitalist businesses. You're the one coming here with a twisted ethical system that somehow places property over people. And you call me racist, lol.
What I don't understand is why many of these small businesses — which have items of value to many people — were targeted. To me, that's burning to burn, damaging to damage, and looting to loot.
This is my home. I visit many of these businesses. I do business with two owners on that list. There are groups of people out here who, yes, are looting to loot and burning to burn.
I understand burning down the precinct though. I'm not upset about that.
We were promised change when a Minneapolis policeman killed a tourist three years ago. If the good citizens of Minneapolis has insisted that there be change, today there wouldn't be problems.
Is there a (real or perceived) class divide in the area? Just curious because I don't know, but I remember in prior riots some people explained that rioters felt like business owners were on a different level to residents and taking advantage of them in various ways like higher prices or not employing locals, so that helped paint them as targets.
To some extent, they were burned/looted/otherwise harmed because they were there. But on the other hand, you have things like this experimental Target whose whole purpose in that (very impoverished) neighborhood was to develop new LP techniques, aimed at putting more people of color in prison: https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505
Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them.
Target is complicit in racism for trying to stop people from stealing from them? Do you have any evidence that Target systematically lets white people steal from them while calling the cops on non-whites?
Would would you only try to stop somebody who is stealing from you if they were white? If so that would be quite racist! Trying to stop anybody regardless of their race from stealing from you is not racist.
Regardless, according to the tweet you posted the policy is targeting poor people not people of color. 40% of poor in the US are non-hispanic whites. That means this policy would presumably also be targeting a huge number of white people as well.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store that is poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground. Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty. And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
>"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
What other interpretation am I to draw? The person I was responded to said Target was intentionally creating new policies to put people of color in jail.
If anything the person I was responding to is the one that needs to take a more plausible explanation of what Target was doing.
>The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store meant to be deliberately poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground.
Stopping thieves is pro-customer. Stores have to mark up the price of the goods they sell to cover the losses from thieves. If less people stole then the price of goods would be less.
I also don't consider a thief to be a customer. Anti-thief is not necessarily anti-customer.
>Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty.
Completely unrelated to the topic of Target and possible racism.
Do you have a look on your door? That is a technology that is defending your wealth. Why not leave your front door wide open and let anybody come in and take anything they want?
I am guessing you dislike other people's wealth but are fine with your own.
>And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
The person I was responding to said "Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them." This seems pretty direct in the accusation that Target is guilty. If he doesn't think the blame is on Target then he would presumably have some level of sympathy for them.
If you can't avoid reflexively jumping on phrases long enough to see the parallels to a common sci-fi theme, then there's no conversation to be had. All I can say is that if you want conservative thought to remain relevant, try applying it where it can be useful. Hint: the breakdown in law and order here started with the police department itself.
>If you can't avoid reflexively jumping on phrases long enough to see the parallels to a common sci-fi theme, then there's no conversation to be had.
I have no clue what you are talking about. What sci-fi theme are you talking about?
>All I can say is that if you want conservative thought to remain relevant, try applying it where it can be useful.
Again I have no clue what you are talking about. I am not making a conservative point. I am just refuting the claim that Target is racist for arresting thieves.
Also seeing how I am being upvoted and you are being downvoted I am guessing my "conservative thoughts" are relevant to many people.
>Hint: the breakdown in law and order here started with the police department itself.
And? That has nothing to do with Target which is all we are talking about.
It also doesn't justify destroying other people's property.
I will admit that I had to re-read this argument. Are you suggesting that Target is racist, because it employs loss prevention tactics? I will admit that this is an odd conversation for me. In a sense, it feels almost as alien as a guy telling me that I owe him reperations by virtue of being in US.
Could you elaborate more? It is possible, I am not getting this.
> People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things
Tip: don't use absolutes. Always leave some margin. As long as there is one single person alive or that has ever lived that conflicts with your statement, that will be used as a counter-example and will be nitpicked to death and people will focus on that, instead of the main point.
If you say "most people", that immediately deflects those arguments. I've learned that the hard way.
Your words almost exactly echo Marilyn Manson’s commentary on the columbine shootings. Interesting parallel. He was asked what he would say to the shooters and he said “I wouldn’t say a single word to them. I’d listen to what they have to say. And that’s what no one did.”
I live a few blocks away from the location of the Floyd incident.
Attacking police officers (or really anyone, at all) shouldn't be encouraged, in my opinion. Ever.
Is an eye-for-an-eye the type of justice that's needed? I don't like it.
These are actual quotes:
"Fuck police, shoot the pigs!"
"Innocents are gonna die"
"This is just the start, you ready? You ready?"
"We're going to burn this fucker down"
"Kill the white folks! Kill whitey!"
Whatever. I've been labeled racist for not wanting to watch my city burn. Can't we have justice without violence?
Yes we can. In fact, this is the entire point of the police and criminal justice system - to reduce violence by providing a predictable and civil source of justice. Unfortunately yours has gone rogue, leading to the failed societal conditions you're experiencing.
That line of thinking is incentivizing violence as a means of "being heard". Whoever riots the loudest and strongest gets to speak and be listened to. No doubt the next step after listening is to compromise, aka "meet in the middle".
So the rioters are hurting their fellow innocents because it's easy and less risky than going after the guilty? You're probably right, but it's not a flattering view of the rioters.
I am talking about the potential for injury (as always exists with fires, looting, and the like, here exemplified by the wheelchair-bound woman sprayed with a fire extinguisher), as well as the property damage, which often causes stress and emotional injury.
It's also easy to forget that the people most harmed by looting are usually members of the (original) victims' own communities.
Attacking another user will get you banned here. The fact that emotions are so inflamed right now makes that more important, not less. I appreciate (having read your other comment) that you've been in a difficult situation, but taking it out on someone here is not an ok use of HN. It just damages this place as well, which doesn't help anyone or make anything better.
The factual correction in the second half of your comment would have made a fine contribution by itself. Indeed other users posted something corrections, without attacking anybody:
Do you think that telling someone to "shut up and listen for five minutes" is an effective way to communicate your message? How would you respond to such a lead-in?
But the police don't look like thugs and villains when they murder black men? Note this murder came off the heels of the protests at several state capital buildings where armed white males were in the faces of the police and shouting (images available on the internet). Not a single tear gas canister was fired. It's time for all of us to realize there's something sinister going on. The state is singling out a certain class of people for an extremely violent response. The point was driven home to me when I saw the CNN news crew get arrested. It's all on camera. It's all there now for the world to see. I'm afraid there's something really bad underfoot. We'd all better be paying attention.
It looks like this account is using HN primarily for ideological battle. Would you please not do that? It's explicitly against the site guidelines, because it destroys what HN is supposed to be for.
> disgusts the vast majority of law abiding people
Speak for yourself. I'm quite happy they burned down a police station. Let DAs and cops around America take note: going forward, if you don't act decisively when a cop murders a black person, you're probably gonna lose a police station.
It's just a damn shame the cops forced the people to go this far to get the message across. The police officer standing by that let the murder happen could have prevented it, the cops at the protests could have deescalated instead of firing tear gas into crowds of peaceful protesters. The cops did a GREAT job of descalation when white armed militia turned up at the Capitol two weeks back, they're clearly capable of it. And, the DA could have chosen to have the murderer arrested straight off.
You realize that radicals and those protesting are part of the "public", right? That their expression of grievances are part of "public opinion"?
As for the people who are disgusted? Nobody cares. They're apologists for state violence, and if after all this time they still don't understand why things are unfolding the way they are, they're only a roadblock to progress.
Fellow HN user, I welcome you with warmth so please don't take what I say offensively, but as a different perspective.
> What happened is awful. It doesn't reflect how genuinely kind people in Minnesota are and how we, collectively feel about what happened and the movement at large. There will always be edge-cases as there is with any situation in any context. But for everyone that I've known, for everyone I've met and encountered with in Minnesota, when I look back at my time spent on either coast I always have found the people in Minnesota to be great.
Characterizing what is happening as an edge case is a huge mistake. People do not spontaneously start protesting with so much anger if it hasn't built up over so long. The police do not act with such impunity against citizens "just in this off case". It needs to be systemic for the reactions to be this strong.
If you haven't experienced this personally, that's great! I will not question your experiences. But please understand that others have not had the same experience. They've had such a bad experience that they're willing to go out in the streets during a pandemic to say "enough is enough". The police have had enough experience to be well prepared with crowd control tools and to use them immediately on peaceful protestors, when they could have de-escalated. People don't burn down a building they consider a symbol of tyranny just because of a single incident; their experience so far has ingrained into them a deep hatred for the police who are meant to protect and serve them.
As others in this thread have said, please try to listen to other perspectives. People experience different realities, and all of them can coexist without having to disprove the other.
May you never experience having your livelihood burnt down because of an unrelated issue.
It seriously blows my mind anyone does think this is justified or supports it. That is way beyond reason, even from an understandably aggrieved point of view.
I'm not in favor of burning and looting, but i'm not convinced it wasn't kicked off by the cops, gladio style. If we ever found that out, it won't be for decades, at which point anyone who talks about it becomes a crackpot going on about ancient history.
Once burning and looting starts, well it's like fire, or panic buying.
A group of people who are systematically disenfranchised witnessed a visceral oppression committed by the guardians of that system. They are now extremely upset and frustrated and expressing their anger and frustration at a system that for a long time now made snail's pace progress toward equitable treatment of them.
The police largely function as protectors of personal property and relationships of ownership. I mean, look at the very reason that the cops arrested George Floyd; an alleged fake $20 dollar bill. In a time of pandemic 4 police offers showed up to enforce the ownership of capital.
Those guys who the state dispatched to enforce the value of money then ended up killing a guy. Its quite possible that the people who are rioting and protesting feel pretty damn angry at their treatment under capitalism and don't give a damn ownership of resources right now. They might even feel angry about ownership of resources in general. This is their community, and I suspect it's not yours. They get to decide their relationship to owners of resources, not you.
Another fellow Minnesotan here and former Minneapolis resident (used to live a mile away from Hiawatha and Lake back in the day).
>Characterizing what is happening as an edge case is a huge mistake. People do not spontaneously start protesting with so much anger if it hasn't built up over so long.
These protests are at least partly drummed up by out of state agitators, and are implicitly condoned by a feckless and weak state and local government that would rather give ground (literally) than enforce the rule of law. Saying "enough is enough" means going to the polls, not burning down all of the businesses in your neighborhood that were already on the verge of collapse thanks to the pandemic. That people are making up excuses for this behavior is disturbing to me, and signals that America is farther along the path of Imperial collapse than I previously thought. What end do you think we end up with here by condoning this? Agitators taking over City Hall? Disbanding the police department?
Please don't excuse burning down entire neighborhoods. Thanks.
> These protests are at least partly drummed up by out of state agitators
This is a scary response. We saw, today, a black CNN reporter arrested by state police on live television. If that’s how an educated, gently-speaking, Constitutionally-protected member of the press is treated, there is a root issue festering. Blaming it on agitators deflects from introspection.
A big part of the problem is Minneapolis’s moderates have turned a blind eye to the problems in their police force for years. That civic neglect has consequences. Those consequences are coming home to roost.
> A big part of the problem is Minneapolis’s moderates have turned a blind eye to the problems in their police force for years
that is a massive leap in agency that doesn't seem appropriate at all. any cities' "moderates" (??) have extremely limited agency over "the problems in the police force": if the head police officer is elected, that's one, and perhaps city council members who control budgets or other things related to police work.
since you're strongly implying that civic neglect is what caused this issue, what are the civic actions that this city's moderates should have taken in order to have prevented these problems?
If you watched an of the live feeds from the last two nights there are plenty of people who announce that they're from e.g. Nebraska and part of some Antifa faction.
>A big part of the problem is Minneapolis’s moderates have turned a blind eye to the problems in their police force for years.
I don't understand how people can honestly think this is true. The Police Commissioner is literally the guy from Internal Affairs who filed a lawsuit against the city for not promoting black officers fast enough. The state attorney general is the guy who has proudly photographed himself with an anarchist handbook. All across state and local government in Minnesota you find people who are, allegedly, the kind that are supposed to address the "civic neglect" you assume to exist. What more do you want?
> The Police Commissioner is literally the guy from Internal Affairs who filed a lawsuit against the city for not promoting black officers fast enough.
Looking after their own. Should I give them a cookie too and a belly rub?
And the protests are clearly also not about the death of George Floyd. Unless you think all of these small businesses being burnt to the ground were somehow complicit in his tragic death.
For police to stop killing unarmed people. If I knelt on someone's neck for five minutes, I wouldn't get two days at home! Police need to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
How about sending the bill for the civil suits from all these unlawful killings to the policemen's union instead of the city? How about cops who keep getting involved in officer involved shootings get their house taken to pay judgements?
I don't know if you've seen a map of the area, but outside of St Louis way to the south, Minneapolis is pretty much the only metro area near the states of ND, SD, NE, IA, MN. Many minorities in these states have felt marginalized for decades (particularly the Native American people, but that's a whole different story). Driving to the closest metro area in solidarity is the only choice for many people to be part of the cause they support without having to do it individually.
The protests started peaceful. There were no calls to burn down a police station. The first window shattered was done so by an undercover cop.
The first violent action taken was by the cops. So the people responded in turn.
Nope, I don't blame them. They tried kneeling, so the president got a football player fired. They tried peacefully protesting, the cops showed up armed to the teeth and fired at people with plastic bullets and tear gas. There's a video of a parade of cop cars driving by protestors, the last of which indiscriminately sprayed pepper spray into the crowd.
Please don’t do this here. Demonizing HN users or blaming them for systemic issues while trying to have an honest conversation is totally uncalled for.
> I stand by my previous statement that America is farther on the path toward collapse than I previously surmised
I don't disagree with you, but I feel that the blame lies with the government, not with the rioting people who are just tired of the government arbitrarily executing people in the street whenever they feel like it.
And please don't give me the usual nonsense about "you get what you vote for". The level of real disenfranchisement in this country is staggering.
Say what you want, the protests were peaceful until the cops started firing off tear gas. The videos are there for all to see.
Regardless, we shouldn't be surprised at the levels people will go when you grind their noses into the dirt for four hundred years. The law enforcement arm of the government brought this upon itself.
I don't think people are condoning or encouraging rioting, but are pointing out that violence is completely expected given the degree of disenfranchisement people feel in these situations.
"Going to the polls" hasn't worked. Allowing the courts to dispense justice has done anything but that. What then? People get frustrated and angry, correctly feel like they have no voice and no options, so they unfortunately resort to violence.
Local businesses being destroyed is a horrible outcome of this, but I can't even make myself feel bad about the police precinct burning. (I do feel very bad for and worry about the safety of firefighters.)
If you want to blame anyone, blame the police for getting us to where we are today.
> These protests are at least partly drummed up by out of state agitators, and are implicitly condoned by a feckless and weak state and local government that would rather give ground (literally) than enforce the rule of law.
Its primary failure in enforcing the rule of law has been its inability to enforce it on police officers.
What we're seeing is the consequence of decades of lawless behavior by police. People have had enough of being terrorized by it.
> Saying "enough is enough" means going to the polls
What if voter suppression or gerrymandering exists? What if no candidate wants to address police brutality? What if issues are easily forgotten over a multi-year cycle with a complicit media?
Rioting shouldn't be a first choice, but polls don't fix everything.
"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." - MLK
Not in /Letter from a Birmingham Jail/ (1963), but he would later go on to state the following (1967):
"Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. ... But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again."
You're failing to understand that the ordered system of justice that you're prescribing only works for a small portion of (wealthy, powerful) American society, because the processes of that order are intertwined with a systematic, institutionalized effort to deprive minorities of rights. People are fed up with trying to work inside of a system that barely considers them human.
I think what you're failing to understand is that your kind of rhetoric is directly adjacent to the standard communist revolutionary rhetoric employed across e.g. South America.
>People are fed up with trying to work inside of a system that barely considers them human.
Amazing that people actually believe this, when there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
> there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
Laws are meaningless when those responsible for enforcing them flaunt and ignore them, and the judiciary lets them off again and again with barely a wrist-slap.
People don't look at what's written in a law book and feel like the system is protecting them. They look at how the system actually acts toward them. And in this case, they're justifiably terrified.
> your kind of rhetoric is directly adjacent to the standard communist revolutionary rhetoric employed across e.g. South America.
Yeah, I'm a Marxist. I align with many (not all) ideas about proletarian revolution.
> Amazing that people actually believe this, when there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
We've seen how powerful people, the wealthy, politicians, and law enforcement have time and again broken laws and attempted to circumvent them for their own gain or to preserve the established order.
>there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
do you think the laws are literally broken or figuratively broken then? also there are many laws at many levels of priority. some of them in effect enable you to kill protected classes of people under convenient circumstances
Dissent is the most American value. The country was founded on it.
Accusing people who are trying to explain the logic of why reasonable citizens will take extreme actions as "communist revolutionary rhetoric" is neither here nor there. What if it is? Does that by itself make it false? Please engage with the facts, and if you can't, refrain from such nonsense. It won't take the discussion anywhere.
> Amazing that people actually believe this, when there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
The presence or absence of laws by itself means absolutely nothing. Can you not see how tone deaf you seem when there are all these people trying to express their frustration and you dismiss that with "why the f are you so angry, there are laws that protect you".
It's useful to point out communist rhetoric where it exists because they typically get to employ all sorts of useful tricks to shutdown discussion, like you just did with calling me "tone deaf" for not excusing rampant looting and destruction. It's effective to say things like this because it triggers a guilt response in people, and they usually back down.
If you want some facts, here's a list of all of the buildings damaged or destroyed by people "expressing their frustration". Notice that some are government buildings that provide services to the poor, who are obviously more affected by the ongoing pandemic. You can continue defending them, if you like.
>Dissent is the most American value. The country was founded on it.
This statement is thrown around all the time, but it's really an attempt at gaslighting people into thinking that chaos and calamity was what the people who started the American Revolution were fine with. Of course, the opposite is true, and the chaos and calamity of a weak and ineffective English Imperial Regime was what they were rebelling against and the final form of the revolution was an institution of essentially the same style of English Common Law but with distinctly American characteristics.
Would you please stop using HN for ideological battle? It's not what this site is for, and it's against the guidelines because it destroys what it is for.
"Order" is not the same as "justice". I have no respect for people who advocate for the former without ensuring the latter is done. And those who are in a position to ensure justice is done, but refuse to do it, don't deserve order.
I just want to point out that you're wrong to say these places "didn't do anything". Or rather, I would contend that they did do something, aka nothing, which is what led to this situation.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.'" - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
I'm not advocating for violence or destruction, this result right now sucks to the nth degree. But I am advocating that folks start paying attention to kneeling football players and other peaceful protestors instead of telling them to shut the fuck up.
Because you know what else sucks in addition to businesses burning? Folks dying for no other reason than the color of their skin. If you're asleep when it comes to human costs, but awake when it turns economical, take a look deep inside yourself.
If you make peaceful revolution impossible, if you deny justice for too long, this is the result. Don't pretend that society at large "didn't do anything". By doing nothing, we all did a whole lot of something.
That's a great quote, thanks for sharing that. Long, thoughtful, and almost certainly a real quotation for once.
I think there's a strong naivety in liberal perspectives on non-violence. Liberal successes like the civil rights movement were finalized and won by non-violent leaders like MLK, and so he has been championed as a hero who represents the values that won the day. Students in school are taught that "the good guys" follow his approach. MLK is, without a doubt, a social hero to a very high degree. However, there's a HUGE other side to the civil rights movement. The state is incentivized to work with non-violent leaders because the alternative is credible threats of violence. When the bulk of the population thinks violence is never an option, your non violent offering loses its teeth.
You don't need to advocate for violence. But if it happens, focus on the root cause and empathize with why people are driven to this.
"With all that's happening the last few days, please don't associate Minnesotans with the riots that have captured the attention of everyone. The peacefulness of the protests and gatherings has been overshadowed by the violence. There are countless examples of Minnesotans standing up to those who choose to loot and destroy. Those images are being overlooked."
MPLS homeowner here (although I no longer live there).
I hear what you are saying and I am sympathetic to it - especially given my broad experience with all facets of Minnesotans all over the state.
However this violence should reflect on Minnesotans, including my own many years of residence there. We failed to make investments in the built and the social infrastructure - including policing - that would have made it impossible for bad actors like this to carry a badge.
It's very easy to look romantically at the Prairie Home Companion caricature of the Good Lutherans that quietly get the job done - and I wish that it were true. The fact is, we let I-35 drop into the river just like any other bunch of assholes.
I don't mind if there's a disruption. But I do mind needlessly inciting chaos for the purpose of creating mayhem. We don't know this person, yet, but as AG Ellison said in his tweet he looks like he's just there to provoke.
Watching live streams from the protest informed me a lot about who these protesters are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eZaOGehK6k . What surprised me is that they were mostly pretty young. They also looted a liquor store across from the police station and you can notice how everyone seemed to get drunker and drunker as the night went on. I think they are venting a lot of built-up frustration and honestly have a pretty good time doing it.
> But burning down the precinct? Yeah, I can get behind that
How is this not glorifying violence? Replace "precinct" with "school" or "church" , makes it more obvious. .. especially since the precinct was still occupied when it was attacked.
I assume if a school or church had a decades-long history of unjustifiedly killing civilians in a discriminatory way, it would be shut down by the justice system.
When the justice system itself has this dysfunction, however, that doesn't quite work.
What does this analogy gain when you replace it with school or church? People didn't attack schools or churches, and schools and churches didn't employ the murderer in question.
Indeed. The riots and destruction are an unfortunate byproduct of the outpouring of pent up rage and grief. They are a distraction from the real issue, which is the summary execution by the state of people in the street. The police are 100% responsible for all destruction that has occurred this week. If they had not executed a man in the street, none of this would have happened.
Honestly, I only wish I could generally associate the people outraged rioting in the streets with the average Minnesotans, that would probably have prevented the culture that lead to where we are today. Maybe, for example if there were countless examples of Minnesotans standing up to racism and police brutality?
Well if we can speak with such absolute certainty, I'll go next: there are dozens of undercover and rogue police officers involving themselves in escalating all the bad stuff
in the past, riots have strengthened public support for more armor, more weapons, bigger budgets, less oversight. But there are less calculating possibilities as well.
You think that others' views of Minnesota are worsened more by the riots than by the initial and continuing actions of Minneapolis police and authorities?
The people rioting generally seem like decent people standing up for a just cause. So no, we won't judge all Minnesotans the same way. We will judge the people who set things up so that this is a common occurrence much more harshly. And that includes most Minnesotans. But don't worry. That includes most Americans. We'll judge them all for the shitty society they created where cops can beat and murder innocent people and get away with it. And we'll especially judge the cops, all of them, for murdering, stealing, assaulting, and supporting their fellow officers in the commission of such crimes. People are not innocent simply because they are nonviolent when they fully support the violence of police.
With all that's happening the last few days, please don't generally associate Minnesotans with the violent riots that have captured the attention of everyone. The peacefulness of the protests and gatherings has been overshadowed by the violence. There are countless examples of Minnesotans standing up to those who choose to loot and destroy the innocent. Those images are being overlooked.
What happened is awful. These violent riots, and the violent images aren't reflective of Minnesotans at large. The violence doesn't reflect how genuinely upset people in Minnesota feel about what happened and greater the movement at large. There will always be edge-cases as there is with any situation in any context. But for everyone that I've known, for everyone I've met and encountered with in Minnesota, when I look back at my time spent on either coast I always have found the people in Minnesota to be most great.
I have friends and colleagues asking me "what's going on with everyone in Minnesota?" and I have to explain to them that these images aren't representative of the place I call home and my neighbors I call my friends.
There are businesses that didn't do anything wrong which have have been effectively `rm -rf` because of a small group of bad actors. The Target on Lake Street didn't do anything. Banadir Pharmacy didn't do anything. Seward Pharmacy didn't do anything. The pawn shop didn't do anything. The WIC office didn't do anything. The liquor stores didn't do anything. MoneyGram didn't do anything. The tobacco store didn't do anything. Disrupting those businesses and the livelihoods of their employees and owners doesn't prove a point.
But burning down the precinct? Yeah, I can get behind that.