As someone who is black and impacted by these recent events - think of them as a giant pouring of gasoline on an already present fire. People are grieving pain that has been present for years. People grieve in different ways. I don't agree with using violence, looting, rioting as a means of grieving, yet I can fully understand why others have taken that route. The riots are in fact a symptom...not an excuse. It's a fact. Slavery was a "well known problem", but it took the Civil War to see the Emancipation Proclamation come into fruition.

Getting rid of racism in America's systems and in individuals is going to take a lot of effort along with moments like this where everyone is reminded of exactly how much progress is left.

I stumbled on an interesting phrase for the looting: "looters are not protestors, and protestors are not looters." Some may even distinguish protesters from rioters. Indeed, there are black people still peacefully protesting, even against the use of uncontrolled destruction. It doesn't make sense for people (of different races) to destroy and at the same time rake the reputation of black people through the mud for a moment of... satisfaction (?) without care for the people - even black people - who will be suffer for it.

But I am certain that whoever, regardless of race, is stealing from some designer store does not give a flying fuck about the movement - at least when compared to their greed. BLM is not about the use of slave labor predominant in the clothing industry.

The reason why recognizing group dynamics is important is because it can serve as a means to deprive individual liberty.

In the case of the protests I expect people are turning out for at least a few different reasons:

* this is an issue they are concerned about, and now there seems to be sufficient attention on it to actually cause change;

* this is an issue they are concerned about, and they have nothing else to do given the coronavirus lockdown;

* they're bored and it could be fun;

* it could be an opportunity to cause destruction (videos suggest a number of police see the protests in this light).

In terms of protests and riots being a symptom of a sick system, that is absolutely the case. History has many examples of change that was only brought about by the large scale demonstrations (e.g. women's suffrage, civil rights). In a better system this would not be required. Effecting change that is not in the interests of the ruling class is incredibly difficult in most of our democracies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_(belief_revisio...

I guess I'm not totally sure what point you're trying to make, what's your theory exactly?

People are coalescing into groups more so for non cognitive behaviors than for deliberate premeditated concerns but when confronted by that reasoning deflect. When confronted they don’t deny it or excuse it but instead argue defense of positions that were never in question.

There are few things more loaded with terrible, horrifying historical imagery in America than a white police officer lynching a black man.

And I promise you, the significance of this horrific imagery was not lost on a single black American.

Might be that they were busy working/worrying about corona? Busy making a living? Being under circumstances that were already straining the limits, but not straining enough to actually riot?

Via anger, sadness, depression - whatever?

As an Army guy with a family embarking on his fifth overseas deployment spontaneous bursts of rage are frowned upon. I don’t do that. I have gotten comfortable to sparse, tiny, lonely living conditions and learned to regulate my mental health according to the expectations at hand.

> the progress just isn't quick enough

I suspect the majority of people engaging in riots, and possibly the protests as well, have provided little to no participation of any kind towards these social concerns before two weeks ago, and if that is true the speed of progress is irrelevant.

The thing about counterinsurgency is that shooting insurgents makes more insurgents. Especially the indiscriminate use of "non lethal" rounds to cause severe and permanent injuries: shooting people, including reporters and medics, in the face with rubber bullets. Every act of filmed violence (e.g. https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1268759072876224514 ) makes the situation worse.

And the two feed off each other. The overseas wars return to domestic strife. A historical example: https://twitter.com/BeijingPalmer/status/1267539424549769219

According to the definitions though it is not an insurgency. An insurgency is violent opposed to a non-violent rebellion. Most peaceful protesters appear to disavow violent rioters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency

I suspect their point was that quoted line. I didn’t miss it so much as I just didn’t comment on it when the rest of the comment is just such nonsense.

And I've read enough history to wonder why and how the black population has suffered so much injustice for so long. You ask "why now" and you question their motives. But the only explanation I could come up with - for why they suffered in silence for the last few decades - was that the enemy was too formidable. Yet there is a breaking point, and George Floyd probably was it. I'm not hopeful that there will be any change though. On the contrary the American system will make black people pay, in a long, insidious, and institutional manner.

> It is not about you, but about the historical imperialism America

This host nation invited American presence as a partner.

Would there be riots right now had Floyd not been killed? Have you even seen a riot started out of nothing? Just for fun?

I doesn't change the original point that if a politician's first goal is to stop the riots, it's only to cover a symptom while the real problem is not fixed. And it's a matter of time before everything starts over again.

It's a pretty well-known phenomenon. You hold a sports riot when your team wins, not when it loses.

Seen any riots in Iraq? What did you think the Arab Spring was?

(Conversely I suspect the people in the protests are almost certainly all politically engaged and at least vote. The previous political engagement of BLM has not achieved anywhere near the same results as the protests have. The protests appear to be the only way to get police charged for murder even when there is clear video evidence.)

Do you see how superficial this appears?

In case you didn't know, BLM has been around for a long time and NAACP has been around even longer. The issue of systemic violence against minorities has also been an issue in the American social scene for at least the last 100 years.

People are coalescing into groups more so for non cognitive behaviors than for deliberate premeditated concerns but when confronted by that reasoning deflect. When confronted they don’t deny it or excuse it but instead argue defense of positions that were never in question.

> Do you see how superficial this appears?

Good. That is my point. If you find the subjects that people are protesting about concerning and important you should very much care whether outside observers see something sincere or superficial.

The rest of your comment I agree with 100% and have been repeating this numerous times without directly specifying organizations by name.

I also believe rioting is contagious. But that doesn't mean it doesn't require justification. Otherwise, wouldn't we see riots totally disconnected from any justification? But few people, when they see vandalism and don't agree with the cause, won't join in. Not enough to spark a riot.

>Why suddenly congregate into emotional hysteria, especially since other people have been actively addressing these concerns for years, when the problems of complaint are preexisting and were clearly previously known to these congregants?

There have been protests, lawsuits, smaller violent reactions, and other riots for decades. It doesn't seem sudden to me.

Sensitive people like you make me sad. [from your own bio]

To me labelling people who collectively rise up against systemic domination as 'emotional hysteria' is just the epitome of cruelty.

#blacklivesmatter

[EDIT] to put it another way, there's a cost to political action. That a lot of people might see that cost WRT anti-police-brutality protests as lower, and the benefit it yields higher, this week than they did two weeks ago, and so be willing to participate, is not "emotional hysteria". Not that nothing that could be described as that has been involved at any point in the process, but that seems reductionist to the point of being very wrong as a characterization for the overall movement.

Of course, if you're saying society at large is irrational I pretty much agree... but within the context of social expectation, I'd say it's pretty rational to compute that your contribution is more likely to land once a movement has already started. If anything, those who first begin the movement are the most irrational (since the likelihood of success is much lower compared to the personal cost to the individual).

In other words: if you live in an irrational system, the only way to be rational is to behave irrationally.

EDIT: Italicizing.

Same with calling protestors "irrational" -- maybe to your point of view, they are but this is not an objective statement by any definition of the word.

Sure, but that's not what I described.

I am not sure why that word comes across as offensive given that people were rioting. I can’t think of any better example of a sudden burst of excess emotion.