This is a great way of phrasing something I've tried saying several times but it always fell flat.

Since I'm gathering you're more open than your initial post gave on, I'll try give feedback on the difference here. Your posts seemed to blame lockdowns as the issue, minimizing the unavoidable impacts of the pandemic. aphextron references a breakdown in supply chains & social support, something the american government has failed to step in for, preferring corporate bail outs

ie there's not an implication that these riots were avoidable by not having lockdowns

Thank you for the reminder to be overly explicit when describing things on the internet.

This is the first time I’ve heard this obvious point. There are riots now because people just don’t have the energy left to protest while surviving in hyper capitalism. They’ve got plenty of entertainment at home. This is bout energy and time. Employment supresses protest because it takes time and saps energy.

> Employment supresses protest because it takes time and saps energy.

Also protesting in some cases risks employment. A decent portion of these people likely no longer have that as a concern.

> They’ve got plenty of entertainment at home.

Some people, particularly introverts, may be able to satiate themselves indefinitely with television or the internet. But a lot of people get antsy if they're made to spend even just a single weekend inside at home.

There are lootings because police resources are tied up showing force against protestors, and people with bad intentions see an opportunity. The violence and property destruction is a separate event from the protest marches with different people engaging in these practices entirely. If I was one of the 70k people living on the street in LA, this would be a great time to stock up on essentials from a CVS on Capital's dime. However, I don't condone the looting of small businesses where owners have very little savings. Many of these immigrant run businesses that make LA unique don't have insurance, and many will fold after this inventory loss coming on the heels of two months of no income.

There's a very good chance many of the stores destroyed by looting/burning in these poorer neighborhoods won't be reopening.

Perfect opportunity for the large chains to close up some of these locations that had to be marginally (if at all) profitable.

Big chains can also move right back in when the economics are right with their deeper pockets and other revenue. People with little savings aren't able to ride it out nor buy back in.

It's more likely that they'll move further from the looted areas to prevent a repeat.

I mean, who's to say this won't happen again in November?

Yes, although I would argue that it's amplified by foreign and internal actors. It is their election year after all and 99% of US media has spend the last 4 years doing its best to destabilize the country.

The other alarming aspect for other countries should be that this is quite likely a preview of what other countries will see. The unemployment numbers are awful everywhere and as the programs enacted come to a halt things are probably not going to get better.

> It is their election year after all and 99% of US media has spend the last 4 years doing its best to destabilize the country.

Why blame it just on the media? The current federal administration has done a fantastic job at destabilizing the country with no plans of deceleration in sight.

Agreed - both are to blame.