146 points
*

This is an actual conversation I had with my oldest nephew when we went to the Boston Tea Party Museum last week.

“If you ever hear people complaining that damaging commercial property during a protest is unacceptable, remember what you learn about the Tea Party today. Our country was literally founded on protests trashing commercial property. And remember that some people complained to them that it was unacceptable too.”

permalink
report
reply
51 points
*

The tea wasn’t owned by the mom and pop shop neighbors who were also fighting for the same cause. There is a difference to me in a large corporation sustaining damage it will recoupe from insurance and people trying to scrape by and now can’t afford rent until the hopefully if they had insurance, then maybe a check comes in a few months.

Those places if a protestor breaks in during a riot I am fine with being shot at and even killed if need be. Your cause doesn’t give you the right to starve or put in jeopardy other people’s lives who did not choose to riot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Case in point

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Owners are owners. I can’t have too much sympathy if a group of disenfranchised people, who have never had the opportunity to own anything, don’t distinguish between hyper capitalists and regular vanilla capitalists. Both are pieces of the system that denies people the value of their labor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

That’s exactly what the government wants. They want you to eat each other not them and the corporations. Stop buying shit, stop paying for internet and cell service, stop buying cars etc. That’s the real control we have. Just be idle and watch them bail.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

What riots are you talking about, this discussion is about rioting needing to become more common, not a specific incident that already happened.

That said, the deadliest listed on a quick seaxh was 1947, between 500,000-2,000,000. (Punjab, located between Pakistan and India today)

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I’m with you that it’s a crime that should be punished, but you lost me at murder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

What a fucking asshole. Maybe your position will change when it’s your property that’s being destroyed.

Destroying private property does not make politicians or police question their choices. It barely hurts them in any way. You know who it hurts? Your friends and neighbors who had abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with whatever it is you’re upset about.

The Sons of Liberty only destroyed property that was directly responsible for their oppression.

You wanna go burn down the mayor’s house? The police commissioner’s house? The police union HQ? Have the fuck at it, you have my full support.

You wanna burn down the local convenience store or meat market? You wanna destroy vehicles and businesses that belong to your neighbors who are suffering alongside you? You’re human garbage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

Second verse, same as the first:

"IIt was the Sons of Liberty who ransacked houses of British officials. Threats and intimidation were their weapons against tax collectors, causing many to flee town. Images of unpopular figures might be hanged and burned in effigy on the town’s liberty tree.

Of course, the winners write the history books. Had the American Revolution failed, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty would no doubt be regarded as a band of thugs, or at the very least, outspoken troublemakers."

https://www.ushistory.org/us/10b.asp#:~:text=It%20was%20the%20Sons%20of,on%20the%20town’s%20Liberty%20Tree.

I’ll let Dr. King do the talking:

“A riot is the language of the unheard. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/29/minneapolis-protest-martin-luther-king-quote-riot-george-floyd/5282486002/

“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens’ “Councilor” 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 direst action” who paternistically feels that 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.” 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.”

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/letter-from-birmingham-jail

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Of course, the winners write the history books. Had the American Revolution failed, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty would no doubt be regarded as a band of thugs, or at the very least, outspoken troublemakers."

So then you agree?

“A riot is the language of the unheard. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again.”

Your mistake is conflating an explanation with a justification.

the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice

Maybe you glossed over the part where I supported disorder. The problem is with how and where (and not when, as you suggested) that disorder takes place.

Remind me: did they burn down or steal from MLK’s church?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I’m not getting into how overly exaggerated incidents of property damage during the BLM protests were. You’re not interested in facts

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Historically inaccurate concern trolling. Nice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Are you going to actually construct an argument against me or just throw up some fancy words you learned on the internet and bail?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Even Jefferson wrote how technically it wasn’t right for the colonists to destroy the tea, they had an agreeable reason for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
91 points
*

Jesse’s absolutely right. The only reason our politicians are governing us is because we let them. Occasionally they need to be reminded of that fact.

permalink
report
reply
33 points
*

The reason our government governs us today is because they have an overwhelming ability to do violence on us, and the majority of us fear it, even if only subconsciously. If you think it’s by our choice, you’re utterly delusional.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

You’re right. I never signed a contract with the USA agreeing the current system is the best. We have our ancestors to thank for that, and even then, most of them had no control over the situation.

What’s the best way forward here? Constitutional renewal every generation?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Constitutional renewal every generation?

Yes, especially considering that was the original intent of the document. Whether or not that’s the most realistic, or even a possible way forward at this point is another question entirely, and I don’t like what I think the answer is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Constitutional renewal every generation?

As a non-USA-Citizen, this is what always gets me about the originalists at SCOTUS: the idea of changing the constitution to reflect what the majority of US citizen believes is simply not possible anymore, because of outrageous distortions of the process. Given how unequal voters are distributed across states and the effective veto power of very small states, there is no way for the majority of people to do what the originalists demand: adapting the law so that no interpretation is necessary.

What makes originalism and those that represent it so incredible stupid is THAT THEY ADMIT THIS. Scalia used to chuckle in interviews when this was pointed out to him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, good luck with that pal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
69 points

Based take.

I swear, if you could teleport some people back to the French revolution, they’d be like “No need to protest, the king will give up absolute power on his own if we keep asking nicely” 🙄

permalink
report
reply
26 points

The idea of a Right Wing literally exists because the deputies who thought that way in France back then took the right side of the chamber.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The French Revolution is way more complex and nuanced than that, and saying the people protested against the power of the king per se is really missing the point.

A better example would have been King Charles I and the English civil war.

permalink
report
parent
reply
59 points

Would be nice if we could start at not demonizing peaceful protests. Nowadays any protest is seen as a massive misguided problem of you so much as block a street.

permalink
report
reply
26 points
*

But then muh car can’t move! Go defend your human rights somewhere where it doesn’t inconvenience me!

spoiler

/s

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

In fairness, I’ve got too many emergency workers in my family not to draw the line at fully blocking thoroughfares. Can you look an EMT in the eye who has had a patient die while their ambulence couldn’t get through protestors to the hospital and insist you’re in the right? Happens more than you’d want to know. Can’t find statistics, but googling it shows just page upon page of different incidents, and unfortunately most of the time shit like that happens it isn’t published since it’s all HIPAA-complicated to discuss that stuff.

You want to inconvenience someone walking into a Macdonalds? Go ahead. But keep the artery roads clear. It’s not about convenience, it’s about shutting down life-saving infrastructure. Those assholes that cemented themselves to 93N in Boston 5 years back didn’t earn any sympathy from anyone, even their own cause.

To simplify, the only way to get me not to stand beside you in defending your human rights is if you’re recklessly taking away someone else’s.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Good point. I was thinking more about people just driving in their cars, but I now see that I was a bit ignorant about emergency vehicles.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I cannot speak for every protest, but the last time I went to a climate protest blocking a highway, an ambulance needed to pass through. So everyone got up, left the road, let it pass, and then went back to protesting. You can block a road without blocking essential services.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Dang kids should do their climate strike on the weekends!
Not much of a strike then, is it? You want workers to strike in their free time too? That will show 'em!

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I like the spoiler XD

spoiler

I really do~

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

This. Even “liberals” are out here “PROTEST IS COOL AND ALL BUT DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY JUST MAKES EVERYONE HATE YOUR CAUSE” over a fucking sticker or sign stuck to something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

Riots are generally an escalation of peaceful protests, sure there are exceptions.

Usually, riots break out when people get so frustrated at the fact that no progress gets made during protests that they start to lash out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

I’m with Jesse on this one

permalink
report
reply