London's Burning OR Anarchy in the U.K.

Well, pick any of these rioters off the street and ask them for their reasoning and you won't hear very sensible things. The media and people watching this happen feed off that and condemn the whole situation as kids just being undisciplined brats.

Yes it's trashy, yes it's opportunistic, yeah they're running around claiming they are getting their tax money back which doesn't even make sense. But they're pissed, lower-class people, and this is what happens when there's nothing to give a shit about anymore.

Yet no one bothers to look into why their society came to this point. And now they're talking about limits to social networking.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I disagree; they tend to get what we call 'radical flank effects'. Not necessarily what the actual rioters want, but indeed some degree of desired change in their direction.

It's akin to getting $5 allowance because you asked for $10. Though based on my personal experience growing up, rioting in the house does not have a positive influence on actually getting said allowance. ;)[/QUOTE]

True. I worded that more strongly than I should have.

I more meant that the violent and destructive means lose some of the legitimacy of the message and thus it has less impact than non-violent demonstrations.

For instance, I think it's hard for anyone to argue that MLK's non-violent protests, marches etc. had far more impact on the civil rights movement than all the race riots. Riots just give those in power more excuse to use their power and keep dissidents down--it's gives them more ammo to argue that they're a threat to the well being of society and shouldn't be catered to etc.

So I just think there are far more effective ways to protest than rioting. Protests can be disruptive, large and attention grabbing without being destructive and violent. And those types of demonstrations get much more sympathy and support that rioting.

For instance, I don't think those protesting in the middle east through out this on-going "Arab spring" would be getting so much support from the western world if they'd turned to violent rioting. They've been mostly peaceful, and it's those in power being condemned for being violent. If they were rioting, they'd be somewhat legitimizing their governments use of force and make it harder for their cause to gain legitimacy.
 
[quote name='dohdough']History has shown us that if people fight hard enough and burn down the right cities, you can completely reform a country.

Like I said, nothing will change because no one really gives a shit about those areas/people. If people really cared about making sure people aren't rioting, then we wouldn't have the sentiment like you and many others share that rioting is unproductive. Even if you ignore the message, it's still there.

mykevermin makes the point that at least now, some people are listening.[/QUOTE]

The era of rioting for change has passed. What will come of this most likely nothing, just burnt down buildings and the goods some rioters stole.
 
It's interesting that the UK Government was all for the use of Twitter and Facebook to "allow the people to bring down repressive regimes" in the Middle East.

When it come to them being used by people to organise in the UK, much like the late Amy Winehouse, the reaction is "Oh NO NO" :shame:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True. I worded that more strongly than I should have.

I more meant that the violent and destructive means lose some of the legitimacy of the message and thus it has less impact than non-violent demonstrations.

For instance, I think it's hard for anyone to argue that MLK's non-violent protests, marches etc. had far more impact on the civil rights movement than all the race riots. Riots just give those in power more excuse to use their power and keep dissidents down--it's gives them more ammo to argue that they're a threat to the well being of society and shouldn't be catered to etc.

So I just think there are far more effective ways to protest than rioting. Protests can be disruptive, large and attention grabbing without being destructive and violent. And those types of demonstrations get much more sympathy and support that rioting.

For instance, I don't think those protesting in the middle east through out this on-going "Arab spring" would be getting so much support from the western world if they'd turned to violent rioting. They've been mostly peaceful, and it's those in power being condemned for being violent. If they were rioting, they'd be somewhat legitimizing their governments use of force and make it harder for their cause to gain legitimacy.[/QUOTE]
Ghandi and King have been co-opted by those in power as doing things the "right" way. Although they were the face of the non-violent aspect of their respective revolutions, they were also backed by very real violent threats and actions. Hell, India was involved in an all out war to kick out the Britsih. Even as conservatives and nativists evoke their names to pervert everything those men stood for, the very same type of conservatives actively called to inprison, kill, and besmirch them at every opportunity.

[quote name='Lyricsborn']The era of rioting for change has passed. What will come of this most likely nothing, just burnt down buildings and the goods some rioters stole.[/QUOTE]
I disagree that the time for violent revolution has passed. That's what was said during every revolution. I'd wager that because of the times, we'll start seeing more violence.

As for nothing happening, there's actually very big things happening. The UK government is doubling down on the policies that caused the unrest to begin with. They cut some social services and now they're going to cut them even further. Not only that, but now they want to clamp down on the lines of communication. Sounds like they're becoming a more authoritain state. On the very fringes, some voices will be heard fro the oppressed. That's not exactly nothing.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Ghandi and King have been co-opted by those in power as doing things the "right" way. Although they were the face of the non-violent aspect of their respective revolutions, they were also backed by very real violent threats and actions. Hell, India was involved in an all out war to kick out the Britsih. Even as conservatives and nativists evoke their names to pervert everything those men stood for, the very same type of conservatives actively called to inprison, kill, and besmirch them at every opportunity.[/QUOTE]

All true. I'm not saying a threat of violence--or even violence--has no place in revolutions.

It can, if its directed properly. i.e. at the government and those in power, rather than destroying personal property and hurting store owners by looting etc.

All that type of stuff does is alienate the cause and erode the legitimacy of the message by turning many against you and perhaps even reinforcing support for the government by showing the need of the government to protect people's property and so on.

Point being--a movement isn't going to attract people to it's cause by destroying their property. Direct all that energy at the government, with any violence as a last resort, and you're much more likely to build up a following and get things done than by destroying the neighborhoods of people you should be trying to rally to your cause.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']


thrustbucket - always in for the opinion, never in for the effort. let's use our blind allegiance to one political perspective to save us the time of actually finding out what the cause of the rioting is.

it's funny that you always chime in, but you constantly show that you've no idea what you're talking about, and that you've not done a thing to change that (i.e., become informed). why is it funny? because you're so into personal responsibility and bootstraps and meritocracy - yet you free ride your way through every discussion on these boards, not bothering to offer anything up by bland, vague assertions about the way things are (with zero data).

"Bah, they're just street trash" = zero effort. Ron Paul would be ashamed.[/QUOTE]


I'm sorry, when did common sense need to be backed up with facts? If I say that running across the road without looking both ways was a dangerous idea, would you want that backed up with facts too?

Yeah some dude got shot and that pissed off a few people, just like Rodney King. Do you honestly believe the majority of those rioters were NOT just opportunistic trash riding the wave, just like Rodney King?
Do you honestly believe the majority of them are looting and destroying neighborhood property for some kind of principled, and in any way legitimate, stance?

In fact, please give me just ONE good example of when participation of rioting, wonton destruction of private property, and stealing from private businesses DOESN'T make you street trash. When?

It's a behavior as legitimate and principled as throwing a tantrum, only innocents actually get physically and financially hurt.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Ghandi and King have been co-opted by those in power as doing things the "right" way. Although they were the face of the non-violent aspect of their respective revolutions, they were also backed by very real violent threats and actions. Hell, India was involved in an all out war to kick out the Britsih. Even as conservatives and nativists evoke their names to pervert everything those men stood for, the very same type of conservatives actively called to inprison, kill, and besmirch them at every opportunity.


I disagree that the time for violent revolution has passed. That's what was said during every revolution. I'd wager that because of the times, we'll start seeing more violence.

As for nothing happening, there's actually very big things happening. The UK government is doubling down on the policies that caused the unrest to begin with. They cut some social services and now they're going to cut them even further. Not only that, but now they want to clamp down on the lines of communication. Sounds like they're becoming a more authoritain state. On the very fringes, some voices will be heard fro the oppressed. That's not exactly nothing.[/QUOTE]

If your saying there will be rioting here in the US I would say that is highly unlikely. People these days either lack knowledge, motivation, or are just plain too lazy to rebel.
 
I had saw a news story online, they say that it started by the shooting of the alleged drug dealer (don't know if it was true or not). But this had been building up due to people's dislike of the government with their inability to keep up with the promises of education and things of the such.
 
I went to the peaceful anti-Iraq protests and they were boring as shit but I watched that latest documentary by the Yes men and I thought it was great. Liberals need less bland protests and more performance art.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Rioting is just random street trash, not involved in politics, that want to destroy everything they don't want to steal.[/QUOTE]

How could a generalization like this possibly be common sense? How do you reconcile this broad generalization with, for example, the Egyptian riots earlier this year?

Oh and ;) Knoell. ;)
 
[quote name='IRHari']How could a generalization like this possibly be common sense? How do you reconcile this broad generalization with, for example, the Egyptian riots earlier this year?

Oh and ;) Knoell. ;)[/QUOTE]
;)
 
[quote name='mrx001']http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...bassador-arrested-london-sweep-152907901.html[/QUOTE]

well of course it's only the poor and marginalized. Did you really think that looting would really be done by anyone with the means to otherwise aquire the goods?

Like I said, social protest, burning a cop car, torching a bobby station is rioting with a purpose. Looting is just grabbing shit because you think you can get away with it. But I didn't read a vague article about "the psychology of rioters" so I really don't know what I'm talking about.
 
[quote name='nasum']well of course it's only the poor and marginalized. Did you really think that looting would really be done by anyone with the means to otherwise aquire the goods?

Like I said, social protest, burning a cop car, torching a bobby station is rioting with a purpose. Looting is just grabbing shit because you think you can get away with it. But I didn't read a vague article about "the psychology of rioters" so I really don't know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
It's almost as if consumerism and the cultural capital placed on those items transcend class! WOW! :roll:
 
so now it's consumerism and not social unrest? Tread those waters carefully good sir as you may diminish in the same manner which you accuse others.

You're always going to have a mix of these types in a situation such as these. There are some that are out there to make a point and there are some out there to get a TV. The focus is on those that want to get a TV because it provides a wonderful opportunity to "look the other way" from the original purpose/social unrest. Same with LA and Katrina, instead of pointing out the disease, the media will demonize the symptoms and nothing changes. Thus nulifying the whole thing.

What's really funny here is that we're disagreeing about what we agree on. I like to call it coming to the same conclusion from opposite directions but whatever.
 
There is no point to the rioters. They are not trying to tell us anything (or if they are, they rarely say anything that makes sense). A lot of them are indeed just grabbing shit because they can.

But they sent a message regardless, and it's that there is definitely a very on-edge population that wouldn't otherwise riot if they had anything to care about.
 
[quote name='nasum']so now it's consumerism and not social unrest? Tread those waters carefully good sir as you may diminish in the same manner which you accuse others.[/quote]
Who says they're unrelated?

The news that there were a bunch of looters that looted eventhough they had enough money to buy the stuff was already more than a day old before it was posted here. This thread has the movement of molasses and should hardly be the space where the latest info bumps this thread.

Or maybe, just maybe, the looting is being reported more than attacks against government buildings and cops.

You're always going to have a mix of these types in a situation such as these. There are some that are out there to make a point and there are some out there to get a TV. The focus is on those that want to get a TV because it provides a wonderful opportunity to "look the other way" from the original purpose/social unrest. Same with LA and Katrina, instead of pointing out the disease, the media will demonize the symptoms and nothing changes. Thus nulifying the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with the people committing those acts, but more a problem of how people are interpreting those acts.

What's really funny here is that we're disagreeing about what we agree on. I like to call it coming to the same conclusion from opposite directions but whatever.
Click to expand...
I'd say that's debatable.
 
can we at least agree on this; looters and rioters are different but often found in the same place
looting is stealing shit, rioting is a statement of social unrest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top