Protests over George Floyd killing

[erneiz_hyde]

I am pretty sure the 'lesson' American government will take from this is "apparently we didn't oppress them harsh enough, we need to oppress them harder to make them more servile" because that's the bully mentality and what's actually going on with several other people.
If the protests subside with no real lasting concessions made, non-whites will need to prepare for even a harsher reality.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

frivolity,

So what should we do? Just let thing play out as so. Let unarmed black men and women getting killed for no reason and they get off with nothing at all. We should just "kicked the can down the road" for the next generation to deal with. I am a black man that know first hand the horrors of this and its not only dealing with police but from jobs to even how to take care of our kids. We are sick and tired of being sick and tired. There is no real change or anything like that we are going back to the status quo if we go by your ideas.

Thanks for your views, would you like to share your position on the following? Genuine questions, btw.

1. What fault does each side play in terms of the looting and rioting?

2. What should be done going forward?

3. What will likely happen?

[Kuroageha]

Wait, are there adults that still believe the Soros memes? Over here using it as argument is like wearing your own clown costume

Again, regarding the coverage of the traditional media leaves a lesson: turn the TV off, the internet is your best tool right now.

[MCAL]

Originally Posted by Kuroageha

Wait, are there adults that still believe the Soros memes? Over here using it as argument is like wearing your own clown costume

Believe it or not, it isn't nearly as dumb as people believing protestors are using leaf blowers full of bleach.



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncn...mpression=true

If there ever was a good example for why no one sane believes a single thing this government or police force say, then this is it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mattbc/st...91866252951552
Meanwhile, this is happening.

[Guardian Enzo]

Even Pat Robertson has condemned Drumpf over this, ROFL. I’ m always skeptical but maybe deploying active-duty military (who have an overall negative view of Drumpf, BTW, unlike the police) will finally be a bridge too far.

Just consider, though, that Agent Orange was willing to tear gas priests so he could have a photo op. What will he be willing to do to overturn an election he loses?

[Chosen_Hero]

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Chosen_Hero

That video does a good job of presenting why violent riots are bad (as if that was needed) but claims that there is a slow but sure way of changing things for the better without supporting that claim at all.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That video does a good job of presenting why violent riots are bad (as if that was needed) but claims that there is a slow but sure way of changing things for the better without supporting that claim at all.

I think it's pretty self evident when you look at historical evidence within the US and across countries.

For example, USA is less racist now than it was in the 60s. Consider as well that during World War II, FDR sent the Japanese Americans to concentration camps, with many of them not receiving adequate compensation for the wealth and property that had been confiscated from them, yet Japanese Americans now enjoy some of the highest incomes in the US. There's lots of work to do going forward, of course, but I think most of us will agree that the US has come a long way since Jim Crow laws and WWII.

My home country, Indonesia, has also changed a lot for the better since the racial riots in 1998 that culminated in the resignation of authoritarian president Suharto. Indonesia's case is an interesting contrast because it was the opposite of what's currently happening in the US, in that the riots in Indonesia involved the majority who benefitted from preferential laws rioting against the minority that was being disadvantaged by those laws.

In Indonesia, the majority indigenous Indonesians were poorer on average than the minority Indonesian Chinese (they still are, but things are better now than they were 20 years ago). This was in spite Suharto legislating several laws against Indonesian Chinese. The 1998 riots involved the indigenous Indonesian majority targetting the Indonesian Chinese minority to loot their businesses, ransack their homes, and rape Indonesian Chinese women.

Since the fall of Suharto, many racist laws that targetted the Indonesian Chinese were gradually removed. Indonesia slowly recovered and its economy is now growing at a decent pace. This change came about even though the Indonesian Chinese minority never rioted at all, and were in fact the victims of the riots.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by frivolity

I think it's pretty self evident when you look at historical evidence within the US and across countries.

For example, USA is less racist now than it was in the 60s.

And you think it happened without protests?

Without protests, it's easy for politicians to claim that things are, if not perfect, good enough. And that their pet project, whatever it is (taxing the rich less?) must take priority.

Now, you could say that protests can happen without riots, and they can. But in general, it takes the cooperation of the police, or at least them not actively escalating things into violence.

Consider as well that during World War II, FDR sent the Japanese Americans to concentration camps, with many of them not receiving adequate compensation for the wealth and property that had been confiscated from them, yet Japanese Americans now enjoy some of the highest incomes in the US. There's lots of work to do going forward, of course, but I think most of us will agree that the US has come a long way since Jim Crow laws and WWII.

My home country, Indonesia, has also changed a lot for the better since the racial riots in 1998 that culminated in the resignation of authoritarian president Suharto. Indonesia's case is an interesting contrast because it was the opposite of what's currently happening in the US, in that the riots in Indonesia involved the majority who benefitted from preferential laws rioting against the minority that was being disadvantaged by those laws.

In Indonesia, the majority indigenous Indonesians were poorer on average than the minority Indonesian Chinese (they still are, but things are better now than they were 20 years ago). This was in spite Suharto legislating several laws against Indonesian Chinese. The 1998 riots involved the indigenous Indonesian majority targetting the Indonesian Chinese minority to loot their businesses, ransack their homes, and rape Indonesian Chinese women.

Since the fall of Suharto, many racist laws that targetted the Indonesian Chinese were gradually removed. Indonesia slowly recovered and its economy is now growing at a decent pace. This change came about even though the Indonesian Chinese minority never rioted at all, and were in fact the victims of the riots.

OK, so maybe things will get better if Kenya becomes an economic powerhouse or something.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

And you think it happened without protests?

Without protests, it's easy for politicians to claim that things are, if not perfect, good enough. And that their pet project, whatever it is (taxing the rich less?) must take priority.

Now, you could say that protests can happen without riots, and they can. But in general, it takes the cooperation of the police, or at least them not actively escalating things into violence.

That's exactly my point - protest without rioting. Attach a highly negative stigma against looting and rioting within the minority community. That's how the Japanese Americans did it, and how the Indonesian Chinese did it (though to my memory, Indonesian Chinese rarely protest, if at all).

OK, so maybe things will get better if Kenya becomes an economic powerhouse or something.

Nope, Indonesian Chinese were already wealthy back when China was still poor. Remember, the racial riots in Indonesia happened in 1998. China's GDP per capita was lower than Indonesia's back then.

In any case, how would you respond to the following questions?

1. What fault does each side play in terms of the looting and rioting?

2. What should be done going forward?

3. What will likely happen?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by frivolity

That's exactly my point - protest without rioting. Attach a highly negative stigma against looting and rioting within the minority community. That's how the Japanese Americans did it, and how the Indonesian Chinese did it (though to my memory, Indonesian Chinese rarely protest, if at all).

While the police makes peaceful protest impossible? Good luck.

Nope, Indonesian Chinese were already wealthy back when China was still poor. Remember, the racial riots in Indonesia happened in 1998. China's GDP per capita was lower than Indonesia's back then.

Who cares about per capita? Even today, the USA are ranked 10+ in GDP per capita. So what?

In 1998, China was already #7 in GDP. Indonesia was #36, with 10 times less.

In any case, how would you respond to the following questions?

1. What fault does each side play in terms of the looting and rioting?

Why do you ask?

2. What should be done going forward?

Depends. By whom? For what purpose?

3. What will likely happen?

Mostly the same as last time.

[Key Board]

I lived in Indonesia Frivolity

Chinese Indonesians were not the ruling elite. They were actually the "Jew" equivalents.
They're ethnic scapegoats. The one that demagogues blames for everything.

Riots in Indonesia were equivalent to white people oppressing minorities and screaming at them for "taking their jobs"
I should know. My family was victim of the Jakarta riots. And it happened because systematic racism has brainwashed many people into believing Chinese Indonesians to be the root of the problem instead of corruption and nepotism.

Gee does that sound familiar?
Riots in the US are an oppressed minority making a statement against a much more violent establishment. Totally different things.

Honestly the only reason why we didn't riot in Indonesia was because there weren't enough.
1% of the population compared to what? 12% of Blacks in the US?
I still remember taking the national exams and my Bahasa Indonesia teacher explicitly telling not to write anything in my essay that would give away that I was an ethnic minority.

I remember being forced to pay respects to the flag every damn Monday.
I was hoping things would be different in the US but noooo, y'all started that jingoistic poison and get worse after 9/11

Things got better in Indonesia after President Gus Dur made some reforms.
Do you think Trump will do the same, or will he just double down on racism?
You know the answer

//

[SeijiSensei]

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper breaks with the President over the deployment of US troops.

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1268190932031213570

The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.

He'll likely be gone in a week or two.

[Chosen_Hero]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That video does a good job of presenting why violent riots are bad (as if that was needed) but claims that there is a slow but sure way of changing things for the better without supporting that claim at all.

That's pretty much everyone that had ever talked about the (a) topic and most of the time those that do talk about it mention idealistic dreams that just end up staying as dreams because either they don't follow through on them or those very few that do try and go in with those same idealistic dreams end up getting disillusioned at the fact that the very same people they are trying to help and discussed said idealistic dreams with them doesn't want their help and/or doesn't see them in a very sympathetic light by default just because they are in that position that grants them the power to be a force for change.

This isn't for someone in specific more of a in general thing: You want change? Then how about instead of talking about it in some forum on the internet, or with your group of friends or family you actually do something of worth that will lead to said change? (Within legal reason of course) Actions speak louder than words, if you want there to be a change in how the police or government do something then how about you throw your hat in the ring and show everyone by becoming that force for change.

Sign up to be a police officer rise through the ranks and change shit or become a political representative for your community, do something. A lot of people love to come up with answers, but not one is willing to follow through on them and/or do the work required.

1%, that's the percentage of people in any given population that will ever even actually try to sign up for job as a police officer, even less actually do go through with it. Meanwhile the other 99% are just talking about how the job should be done and how things should be, these people will never even try to actually be that force for change.

Now, I am not saying that people can't or shouldn't talk about it, they can and they should, but if not even one of those people talking about change is willing to actually follow through and be that change and just "leaves it to other to figure out" then what was the point of all that discussion?

Sadly, talking and protesting about it will only get you so far (rioting will not get anyone anywhere), but what about the rest of the work? What are you willing to actually do about it? Will you do anything about it? Are you willing to do the work necessary to follow through on those ideas and ideals? If your ansewer is no, then what was the point then, to bring it up? Great you did, now what?

[Archon_Wing]

Well, maybe if it didn't take a riot to hold the police accountable for anything, this wouldn't happen so much.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I think looters need to be dealt with. But so do thugs that put their knees on dying, unarmed men. Regardless of who's wrong, the government has failed to protect the people and everyone suffers for it. Oh, and let's pretend peaceful protestors don't exist.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper breaks with the President over the deployment of US troops.

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1268190932031213570



He'll likely be gone in a week or two.

Oh it is a CNN article, that would explain the manipulation in order to pit Esper's statement against Trump's.

For those unaware, the Army branch of the US military is broken into three major groups. The Active component, the Reserve component and the National Guard.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Well, maybe if it didn't take a riot to hold the police accountable for anything, this wouldn't happen so much.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I think looters need to be dealt with. But so do thugs that put their knees on dying, unarmed men. Regardless of who's wrong, the government has failed to protect the people and everyone suffers for it. Oh, and let's pretend peaceful protestors don't exist.

Rioting came after the officers who killed Floyd were 'held accountable'.

[Ithekro]

The National Guard is to be called by the State Governors. Sending in Active or even Reservist troops into states without the say of said State Governors is a very slippery slope situation. Borders on being an illegal order, should it be given. If the soldiers follow their oath, and deem it an illegal order, they are inclined to not follow said order from the Commander in Chief, as their oath is to the Constitution. US Troops are not to used on US soil against citizens expressing their First Amendment rights. The National Guard can be called to help maintain order, but not to suppress the population. But the National Guard (formerly the State Militia a hundred or so years ago) is at the call of the State Governments, not the Federal Government, when it comes to matters within states.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Oh it is a CNN article, that would explain the manipulation in order to pit Esper's statement against Trump's.

Add this articles to the ever growing list of articles saying it loud and clear:

Defense secretary opposes deploying active-duty troops after Trump threat

Pentagon chief breaks with Trump, opposes invoking Insurrection Act

or did you expected people to think "yeah, this is a conspiracy by the evil liberal media, I am going now to get my news only from foxnews and breitbart" after reading your post? har, har, har.

[SeijiSensei]

Politico and, in particular, The Hill are among the more conservative organizations in the mainstream media.

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Oh it is a CNN article, that would explain the manipulation in order to pit Esper's statement against Trump's.

What manipulation? It's what Esper said. Also the deployment of the US military inside US borders is governed by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807. There are complicated constitutional issues involved here.

The active and reserve military are covered by those laws. Governors are in charge of the National Guard units in their states.

BTW, Esper has since backed down on ordering the troops back to their barracks. Trump apparently exploded when he heard Esper's remarks.

Of much more immediate concern are the "troops" in DC wearing no identification, and the growing and widespread attacks by police on legitimate journalists protected by the First Amendment.

[MCAL]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JonLemire...06705709961216
I'm shocked! Shocked!
Well maybe not that shocked...