Social In defense of rioting and looting

Stuff has value, just needs to be kept in perspective. Something can have value but not be the MOST important thing. It's not all or nothing to those with some level of sanity.
i don't disagree with that at all. neither of us are really truly referring to the majority of people when we discuss the possibility of violence
 
Rioting and looting can be a legitimate, last resort tactic, but it is not necessary in today's USA. What we are seeing is childish, spoiled, entitled, retards looking to make trouble.
yuck. imagine telling BLM protestors from west baltimore or south chicago that they are spoiled and entitled. where did you grow up?
 
Poor people don't have any empathy for the people who work hard to build a life for themselves because they don't own anything of value themselves so they can't put themselves in the shoes of the people's whose lives they are destroying.

If you defend the people who riot and loot, you've either never worked hard enough or put in the effort to build and own anything of value yourself or you are a virtue signaler who lives in the safe suburbs while you defend these people from as far away as possible. Your empathy for them would end real quick if they brought that shit to your neighborhood and destroyed the things you put your blood, sweat and tears into.
 
https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...78/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting

There is a book called “in defense of looting” by a transgender male to female named Vicky Osterweil, in which she claims that looting and rioting are legitimate forms of protest that send a strong message and lifts poor working class people up.

this radical idea has gained momentum amongst celebrities and intellectuals who feel that this is the best way for those feeling oppressed to have their voices heard. Amongst those feeling oppressed, many have stated this is simply reparations.


Here is a book review/description:
“A fresh argument for rioting and looting as our most powerful tools for dismantling white supremacy. Looting -- a crowd of people publicly, openly, and directly seizing goods -- is one of the more extreme actions that can take place in the midst of social unrest. Even self-identified radicals distance themselves from looters, fearing that violent tactics reflect badly on the broader movement. But Vicky Osterweil argues that stealing goods and destroying property are direct, pragmatic strategies of wealth redistribution and improving life for the working class -- not to mention the brazen messages these methods send to the police and the state. All our beliefs about the innate righteousness of property and ownership, Osterweil explains, are built on the history of anti-Black, anti-Indigenous oppression. From slave revolts to labor strikes to the modern-day movements for climate change, Black lives, and police abolition, Osterweil makes a convincing case for rioting and looting as weapons that bludgeon the status quo while uplifting the poor and marginalized. In Defense of Looting is a history of violent protest sparking social change, a compelling reframing of revolutionary activism, and a practical vision for a dramatically restructured society.”

Another book review that made me laugh my ass off is as follows: “two stars, I would have given it one, but it was a bargain as I stole it.”


Quotes from an interview:

It does a number of important things. It gets people what they need for free immediately, which means that they are capable of living and reproducing their lives without having to rely on jobs or a wage — which, during COVID times, is widely unreliable or, particularly in these communities is often not available, or it comes at great risk. That's looting's most basic tactical power as a political mode of action.

It also attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed. It attacks the idea of property, and it attacks the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions. It points to the way in which that's unjust. And the reason that the world is organized that way, obviously, is for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories. So you get to the heart of that property relation, and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free.

Importantly, I think especially when it's in the context of a Black uprising like the one we're living through now, it also attacks the history of whiteness and white supremacy. The very basis of property in the U.S. is derived through whiteness and through Black oppression, through the history of slavery and settler domination of the country. Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness and of the police. It gets to the very root of the way those three things are interconnected. And also it provides people with an imaginative sense of freedom and pleasure and helps them imagine a world that could be. And I think that's a part of it that doesn't really get talked about — that riots and looting are experienced as sort of joyous and liberatory.”

he/she goes on to explain that the black own businesses that get destroyed are pet it the community and the community knows if those places are equitable-whether security follows them around and watches them, etc. then the discussion shifts to how glorious the looting of miracle mile was where the oppressed purposely picked the richest area to loot to fight the oppression of the rich and the inequitable property distribution.
Easy. Black people and their culture haven’t built up a high functioning modern technological society on their own, So they are not a threat to the current power structure. It’s getting a push because of that. Middle class whites white dignity and morals are the threat.
 
Someone hurt them-maybe their rejection from society. Have you ever noticed they are all pretty ugly?

this statement from you. it is shallow, disingenuous and lacks depth. you have argued passionately with me before and went to great lengths to show what a good man you are but i see people like you, who are so convinced they are good, as being a big part of the problem.

how easy it is for you to discount someone who is upset and causally attribute it to being "ugly" and how shallowly you analyze even that fact on its own possible merits for producing humans that can see outside of the box and who are sometime uniquely qualified to see injustices in a system from the outside.
 
Rioting and looting can be a legitimate, last resort tactic, but it is not necessary in today's USA. What we are seeing is childish, spoiled, entitled, retards looking to make trouble.

correct sir. In the interview, the author discusses why people have fun at the riots and lofting-because they are taking back some power or some shit
 
i don't disagree with that at all. neither of us are really truly referring to the majority of people when we discuss the possibility of violence

No, we aren't. But the article is specifically discussing that minority. That's just who I'm talking about.

Part of the problem is that you can't even necessarily separate these property grabs from actually putting someone else's safety in jeopardy. Or at the very least in some cases giving them psychological trauma from thinking they or their families safety could be in danger.

Someone breaks into your house, odds are they're just trying to steal your shit. But nobody KNOWS that, and you aren't waiting to interview those breaking in to find out. If you have the ability to defend your family, self, and property--you will.

Businesses can be different in that regard, but that's also often not the have nots taking from the haves. It's opportunists taking from someone (in recent cases often it's been black owned businesses) that's earning a living (barely at times) by putting their soul into that business.

The dangers of it becoming commonly accepted thought that violence is good and acceptable as long as you feel aggrieved should be pretty self evident. It's exactly because those ideas are rejected by the majority that we don't have society being completely burned to the ground.
 
this statement from you. it is shallow, disingenuous and lacks depth. you have argued passionately with me before and went to great lengths to show what a good man you are but i see people like you, who are so convinced they are good, as being a big part of the problem.

how easy it is for you to discount someone who is upset and causally attribute it to being "ugly" and how shallowly you analyze even that fact on its own possible merits for producing humans that can see outside of the box and who are sometime uniquely qualified to see injustices in a system from the outside.

First, it was a joke. Second, excusing rioting and looting by an “educator” is not looking “outside the box.” Maybe they would be ok with getting attacked and having their stuff stolen by someone that is oppressed, but most people are not that self loathing. It is not ok under any circumstances except survival, to riot and loot. When you make someone else a victim, you are the scum, not the so called oppressors, and any advocating for empathy for those that would break into and then burn a store to the ground deserves to be called ugly, in fact, a lot worse-they deserve to be victims of what they advocate for
 
Easy. Black people and their culture haven’t built up a high functioning modern technological society on their own, So they are not a threat to the current power structure. It’s getting a push because of that. Middle class whites white dignity and morals are the threat.

kill it with fire. There is nothing like the smell of a bookstore or daycare burning to cleanse one’s self of being put down by high expectations
 
First, it was a joke. Second, excusing rioting and looting by an “educator” is not looking “outside the box.” Maybe they would be ok with getting attacked and having their stuff stolen by someone that is oppressed, but most people are not that self loathing. It is not ok under any circumstances except survival, to riot and loot. When you make someone else a victim, you are the scum, not the so called oppressors, and any advocating for empathy for those that would break into and then burn a store to the ground deserves to be called ugly, in fact, a lot worse-they deserve to be victims of what they advocate for


this is your thread right? ill assume you have not read my other post in this thread and so would recant almost all of this post if you had.

guys like you, who joke about how ugly some people are, don't realize that this actually has a real effect on those people. if you did, and if you cared, and if you did not already see yourself as good, you would not do that. but that would require a motive of actually wanting to find solutions to humanities problems rather than a group to fight or mock or to blame.
 
No, we aren't. But the article is specifically discussing that minority. That's just who I'm talking about.

Part of the problem is that you can't even necessarily separate these property grabs from actually putting someone else's safety in jeopardy. Or at the very least in some cases giving them psychological trauma from thinking they or their families safety could be in danger.

Someone breaks into your house, odds are they're just trying to steal your shit. But nobody KNOWS that, and you aren't waiting to interview those breaking in to find out. If you have the ability to defend your family, self, and property--you will.

Businesses can be different in that regard, but that's also often not the have nots taking from the haves. It's opportunists taking from someone (in recent cases often it's been black owned businesses) that's earning a living (barely at times) by putting their soul into that business.

The dangers of it becoming commonly accepted thought that violence is good and acceptable as long as you feel aggrieved should be pretty self evident. It's exactly because those ideas are rejected by the majority that we don't have society being completely burned to the ground.
the problem i have with your line of thinking is that you are essentially defining stealing/looting as violence, applying human rights to personal property. if that stealing comes with violence, yes, someone should absolutely be able to defend themselves from that. in my opinion, in our currently-governed society, you should not be able to murder someone who is stealing/looting. if you would like to apprehend them and wait for the police to arrive, or disable them without applying lethal force, go for it. same goes for an unarmed person breaking into your house.

violence is not good. period. and it should never be seen as such. but is it inherent in human nature? of course
 
Easy. Black people and their culture haven’t built up a high functioning modern technological society on their own, So they are not a threat to the current power structure. It’s getting a push because of that. Middle class whites white dignity and morals are the threat.
could the veil get any thinner?
 
the problem i have with your line of thinking is that you are essentially defining stealing/looting as violence, applying human rights to personal property. if that stealing comes with violence, yes, someone should absolutely be able to defend themselves from that. in my opinion, in our currently-governed society, you should not be able to murder someone who is stealing/looting. if you would like to apprehend them and wait for the police to arrive, or disable them without applying lethal force, go for it. same goes for an unarmed person breaking into your house.

violence is not good. period. and it should never be seen as such. but is it inherent in human nature? of course


lefty here so keep that in mind.

you should be able to kill people who break into your home armed or unarmed and the same goes for your store if you are in there when they break in.

no one should be placed in the position to have to make an accurate judgment of a burglars motives for breaking into a home, and certainly no one should have to be able to tell if they have a weapon on their person, hidden in their cloths.

if someone breaks into a home society should recognize they have taken their lives into their own hands and if they get shot that is just part of the gig they signed up for.

ive got a wife and a ten year old daughter in my home. i cannot risk being overpowered and having them raped or killed. if someone breaks into my home im pretty sure i would feel my life and their lives are threatened and i will kill them accordingly in self defense.

if you guys want to be food, go ahead and be food but im not food and you should all stay in your lane and not try to make me like you on this topic.
 
Last edited:
the problem i have with your line of thinking is that you are essentially defining stealing/looting as violence, applying human rights to personal property. if that stealing comes with violence, yes, someone should absolutely be able to defend themselves from that. in my opinion, in our currently-governed society, you should not be able to murder someone who is stealing/looting. if you would like to apprehend them and wait for the police to arrive, or disable them without applying lethal force, go for it. same goes for an unarmed person breaking into your house.

violence is not good. period. and it should never be seen as such. but is it inherent in human nature? of course

If someone breaks into your house...you aren't waiting to find out if they're armed. Conflict like that happens extremely quickly. I don't know their intentions, and I'm not risking the safety of my family's lives to find out. Nor in that millisecond am I trying to play sleuth and figure out if they have a gun or knife tucked into their waistband, hidden behind their back, etc. That's why the law sides with me on it. My daughter's life IN THAT INSTANT means everything, and the intruder's life means nothing. Again, that's why we have laws that state that if you can reasonably believe that you or your loved ones safety is in jeopardy, you can use any amount of force you deem necessary (including deadly force). Now that does NOT mean I can chase a fleeing person across my lawn and beat them to death with a golf club because they stole my TV. That's a different scenario.
 
lefty here so keep that in mind.

you should be able to kill people who break into your home armed or unarmed and the same goes for your store if you are in there when they break in.

no one should be placed in the position to have to make an accurate judgment of a burglars motives for breaking into a home, and certainly no one should have to be able to tell if they have a weapon on their person, hidden in their cloths.

if someone breaks into a home society should recognize they have taken their lives into their own hands and if they get shot that is just part of the gig they signed up for.

ive got a wife and a ten year old daughter in my home. i cannot risk being overpowered and having them raped of killed. if someone breaks into my home im pretty sure i would feel my life and their lives are threatened and i will kill them accordingly in self defense.

if you guys want to be food, go ahead and be food but im not food and you should all stay in your lane and not try to make me like you on this topic.

Would give ten likes if I could, I basically just said the same. It's not political, it's simply reality.
 
If someone breaks into your house...you aren't waiting to find out if they're armed. Conflict like that happens extremely quickly. I don't know their intentions, and I'm not risking the safety of my family's lives to find out. Nor in that millisecond am I trying to play sleuth and figure out if they have a gun or knife tucked into their waistband, hidden behind their back, etc. That's why the law sides with me on it. My daughter's life IN THAT INSTANT means everything, and the intruder's life means nothing. Again, that's why we have laws that state that if you can reasonably believe that you or your loved ones safety is in jeopardy, you can use any amount of force you deem necessary (including deadly force). Now that does NOT mean I can chase a fleeing person across my lawn and beat them to death with a golf club because they stole my TV. That's a different scenario.
exactly. now you reach the inherent human error in governing, as a whole. if we are to be held to a standard, that standard should be steadfast. this is the exact point.

you would be completely justified in that action, in my opinion, but may not be under current laws. human nature is the intrinsic flaw in government.
 
Even the LBGQs want to distsnce themselves from the Ts. All you need to know
I know two male to female trannies that are in their 50’s that are ultra conservative and sooooo pro Trump. It is the oddest thing to see their Facebook walls where they are getting attacked for being trans and pro conservative ideas and Trump.
 
I’ve discussed this with my friends in the academia and we’ve concluded that it’s a very immature opinion, attention seeking at most.
 
Back
Top