Hong Kong, Portland and the Moral Low Ground

[FunkyDexter]

That response was an attack

It's not an attack. It's a statement of why an end to to the rioting won't help the cause of preventing the repeated state endorsed murder of black people followed by an explanation of why call to end the rioting at this time are actively detrimental to that. The fact that it's been received as an attack and that we've immediately reached for the language of violence in response to a post on a forum somewhat proves my point that challenges to our world view are invariably received as attacks..

I'll try to be more clear and concise:-

The removal of what you are referring to as violence will not result in the protests becoming more effective, it will simply lead to the reframing of "violence". Than language will change and the public at large will, at best, go back to ignoring the protests or, at worst, continue the calls for the protests to end. You can see this phenomenon throughout history and you can see it in recent times with Colin Kaepernick's protest. If you can provide me with an example of a protest more "peaceful" that that one then please do. The response to it from the public at large (who's opinion I think you're saying is the one that matters if we wish to affect change - I would agree with you) varied between total indifference and the active destruction of his career... for kneeling. It did not lead to the public at large rallying behind him and it did not lead to change.

Calling for an end to that violence, at this time, less than a week after an unarmed man was shot 7 times in the back, by police officers, while his children watched, is detrimental to preventing these things from happening in the future and therefore extremely poor behaviour. It puts state sanctioned murder on an equal footing with vandalism in response to that state sanctioned murder and it feeds in to the narrative that the problem is the protests rather than state sanctioned murder. 1. it sends a message to black people that their deaths are no more important than white people's lost business and 2. it makes a resolution of the causal problem less likely because it shifts focus from that problem and actively gives succour to those who wish to perpetuate it.

You are also trying to represent my opinion with half truths.

I don't believe I am. I get that your position you're currently expressing is at least twofold: 1. that the property damage we are seeing may be detrimental to the cause of black people no longer being murdered and 2. that looting and rioting are objectively bad. I feel I've adequately expressed my opinion on your first point and I actually agree with your second - I just think you're choosing the worst possible time to express it and, while I don't believe that you intend to act against the actual cause of all this (state sponsored murder of black people - lets keep pointing that out so it doesn't get forgotten), I do believe that, in choosing to express it at this time, that's the effect you actually have.

I think there's probably a third thrust but I don't think you've explicitly stated it - I'll answer it anyway because, whether you hold it or not, I'm sure a lot of people do: American People have the right to go about their day, walk the streets and run their businesses without fear of violence. This is true, they do. But unless you fail to extend the term "American People" to include American Black People, that right is unachievable until you have dealt with the state sponsored murder of black people because it is the authorities you are calling upon to protect that right who are murdering them.. That goal can only be achieved if you either 1. don't consider that the goal should include black people or 2. deal with the causal problem first. Chose one.

If there's a fourth or further thrust I've missed it. I'll be happy to engage with it once it's clarified.



Tangentially, I think Greta Thunberg provides an interesting case study in all this because she's probably the best case contemporary case study available for a peaceful protest. I'm afraid I don't think she's been effective. She managed to create a lot of discussion, certainly, but no actual concrete change at all that I can see. The single biggest factor that's worked to slow environmental damage recently has been Corona and, as that starts to lift, we are already seeing the calls to go back to work in offices even if you can work from home because we need support the economy. So, yeah, jump back in your car and get back to pumping those toxins out because... business first (which seems a familiar call).

To put it another way, we don't celebrate MLK because he was effective (we're still here), we celebrate him because he was passive.