If my post bewildered you I can't help. The WP opinion piece should of made it pretty clear that I do not think that rioters and looters automatically equal antifa, a Redneck white hick with a rifle equal a trump supporter or a Black American in a BLM protest is equal to a looter. I'll join in healthy discussion but Im not here to amuse or explain my thoughts or opinions because they don't align.
When a news outfit has to put out counter propaganda everyone's spidey sense should tingle just the same as when trump and his gang say theirs .
To me. It sounds like you're saying the WaPo article differentiating Antifa from rioters/looters is propaganda. It isnt. It's pretty much just a fact. If that's *not* what your post meant to convey, then I invite you to explain it to me. That is the nature of a healthy discussion.
I'm so sick of hearing tear gas being called a 'chemical weapon'. That is such bullshit. They've been using teargas for decades and it's never been an issue until the last few years. Perfect example of moving the goalpost. Tear gas is not nerve gas for fuck's sake...
Just because people have only recently started objecting to certain practices doesnt mean it's "moving the goal posts". You dont have to like that people feel this way, but it is outlawed in warfare. The idea that something crosses a line in warfare but not in civil disobedience should raise your eyebrows
It makes you cry, it doesn't kill you. The reason it's outlawed in warfare is because they don't want to open that Pandora's box to interpretation. My statement stands...
So wait. Your argument is it's not used in military conflict because it might lead to more dangerous chemicals being used. Why exactly doesnt that rationale also apply to to using against civilians protesting? Do you think there arent countries in the world that have used more dangerous chemicals upon their civilians? Iraq and Syria come immediately to mind
If my post bewildered you I can't help. The WP opinion piece should of made it pretty clear that I do not think that rioters and looters automatically equal antifa, a Redneck white hick with a rifle equal a trump supporter or a Black American in a BLM protest is equal to a looter. I'll join in healthy discussion but Im not here to amuse or explain my thoughts or opinions because they don't align.
When a news outfit has to put out counter propaganda everyone's spidey sense should tingle just the same as when trump and his gang say theirs .
To me. It sounds like you're saying the WaPo article differentiating Antifa from rioters/looters is propaganda. It isnt. It's pretty much just a fact. If that's *not* what your post meant to convey, then I invite you to explain it to me. That is the nature of a healthy discussion.
I'm so sick of hearing tear gas being called a 'chemical weapon'. That is such bullshit. They've been using teargas for decades and it's never been an issue until the last few years. Perfect example of moving the goalpost. Tear gas is not nerve gas for fuck's sake...
Just because people have only recently started objecting to certain practices doesnt mean it's "moving the goal posts". You dont have to like that people feel this way, but it is outlawed in warfare. The idea that something crosses a line in warfare but not in civil disobedience should raise your eyebrows
It makes you cry, it doesn't kill you. The reason it's outlawed in warfare is because they don't want to open that Pandora's box to interpretation. My statement stands...
So wait. Your argument is it's not used in military conflict because it might lead to more dangerous chemicals being used. Why exactly doesnt that rationale also apply to to using against civilians protesting? Do you think there arent countries in the world that have used more dangerous chemicals upon their civilians? Iraq and Syria come immediately to mind
Most countries use teargas on civilians when necessary and have for many decades. Military is a completely different application. Whatever negotiations went into military chemical weapons treaties is completely irrelevant.
Btw: I'm pretty sure teargas is used by special forces and commandos so I'm not even sure it's completely illegal for the military to use it against non-military forces (ie: terrorists).
I hate the use of the term "Antifa" by conservative types to describe any left wing person engaged in activism. It's become a meaningless term.
What makes a protest for a left wing cause cease to be peaceful? It's not enough to for people to be murdered. It's not enough for several people to be murdered. It's not enough for buildings to be burned and people to lose livelihoods. It's not enough that you chase the police out of their precinct for an extended period of time. Simply put, nothing is enough, because these people are the "good guys".
No matter who they hurt or what they destroy, the moment they face the slightest consequence for putting others in danger they act like they are being violently oppressed by the new Fourth Reich. It's a clown show.
And when police, or any of their ideological enemies, really, inevitably do get murdered as a result of their rhetoric, these rioter types are the first to celebrate. But oh man, let me kneel down in sorrow because they get the same treatment every other protest movement turned violent has gotten, despite the lack of concern for human life they display again and again and again.
The idea that something crosses a line in warfare but not in civil disobedience should raise your eyebrows
I highly doubt a non lethal riot control agent crosses a line in warfare where people get heated metal shot through their bodies. It was obviously the deadly gasses that were the cause of the chemical weapons ban in warfare.
Getting tear gassed because they are beating folks in the street or worse doesn't make them braver than the average soldier. It makes them a danger to normal people.
If my post bewildered you I can't help. The WP opinion piece should of made it pretty clear that I do not think that rioters and looters automatically equal antifa, a Redneck white hick with a rifle equal a trump supporter or a Black American in a BLM protest is equal to a looter. I'll join in healthy discussion but Im not here to amuse or explain my thoughts or opinions because they don't align.
When a news outfit has to put out counter propaganda everyone's spidey sense should tingle just the same as when trump and his gang say theirs .
To me. It sounds like you're saying the WaPo article differentiating Antifa from rioters/looters is propaganda. It isnt. It's pretty much just a fact. If that's *not* what your post meant to convey, then I invite you to explain it to me. That is the nature of a healthy discussion.
I'm so sick of hearing tear gas being called a 'chemical weapon'. That is such bullshit. They've been using teargas for decades and it's never been an issue until the last few years. Perfect example of moving the goalpost. Tear gas is not nerve gas for fuck's sake...
Just because people have only recently started objecting to certain practices doesnt mean it's "moving the goal posts". You dont have to like that people feel this way, but it is outlawed in warfare. The idea that something crosses a line in warfare but not in civil disobedience should raise your eyebrows
It makes you cry, it doesn't kill you. The reason it's outlawed in warfare is because they don't want to open that Pandora's box to interpretation. My statement stands...
So wait. Your argument is it's not used in military conflict because it might lead to more dangerous chemicals being used. Why exactly doesnt that rationale also apply to to using against civilians protesting? Do you think there arent countries in the world that have used more dangerous chemicals upon their civilians? Iraq and Syria come immediately to mind
Most countries use teargas on civilians when necessary and have for many decades. Military is a completely different application. Whatever negotiations went into military chemical weapons treaties is completely irrelevant.
... I'm not sure I'd say "Most countries ______ and have for decades" is a good argument for most things. For example, Many countries have persecuted LGBTQ people and have for decades. Doesnt make for a compelling argument for why we shouldnt try to stop our government from doing it now.
I hate the use of the term "Antifa" by conservative types to describe any left wing person engaged in activism. It's become a meaningless term.
What makes a protest for a left wing cause cease to be peaceful? It's not enough to for people to be murdered. It's not enough for several people to be murdered. It's not enough for buildings to be burned and people to lose livelihoods. It's not enough that you chase the police out of their precinct for an extended period of time. Simply put, nothing is enough, because these people are the "good guys".
No matter who they hurt or what they destroy, the moment they face the slightest consequence for putting others in danger they act like they are being violently oppressed by the new Fourth Reich. It's a clown show.
And when police, or any of their ideological enemies, really, inevitably do get murdered as a result of their rhetoric, these rioter types are the first to celebrate. But oh man, let me kneel down in sorrow because they get the same treatment every other protest movement turned violent has gotten, despite the lack of concern for human life they display again and again and again.
The idea that something crosses a line in warfare but not in civil disobedience should raise your eyebrows
I highly doubt a non lethal riot control agent crosses a line in warfare where people get heated metal shot through their bodies. It was obviously the deadly gasses that were the cause of the chemical weapons ban in warfare.
Getting tear gassed because they are beating folks in the street or worse doesn't make them braver than the average soldier. It makes them a danger to normal people.
This is all well and good, but ignores the reason for many of the protests - such as systematic state perpetuated racism resulting in the consistent misapplication of force (Sometimes lethal) upon Black people. So apparently protests arent allowed to be violent in response to being the victims of disproportionate state violence. Got it.
I agree with one thing you've said - it is clown show.
Wars have laws. I dont know why everyone takes that so personally. It's rather obvious to me that banning all chemical weapons is a way to try to stop the potential slide into more dangerous chemical weapons.
Warfare
See also: Xylyl bromide § Use as a weapon, and Chemical weapons in World War I
During World War I, various forms of tear gas were used in combat and tear gas was the most common form of chemical weapon used. None of the belligerents believed that the use of irritant gases violated the Hague Convention of 1899 which prohibited the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare. Use of chemical weapons escalated during the war to lethal gases, after 1914 (during which only tear gas was used).
The US Chemical Warfare Service developed tear gas grenades for use in riot control in 1919.[18]
Use of tear gas in warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials", a treaty that most states have signed. Police and civilian self-defense use is not banned in the same manner. [19]
Tear gas was used in combat by Italy in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, by Japan in the Second Sino-Japanese War, Spain in the Rif War and by the United States in the Vietnam War.[20]
Tear gas exposure is an element of military training programs, typically as a means of improving trainees' tolerance to tear gas and encouraging confidence in the ability of their issued protective equipment to prevent chemical weapons exposure.[21][22][23]
Riot control
Certain lachrymatory agents, most notably tear gas, are often used by police to force compliance.[5] In some countries (e.g., Finland, Australia, and United States), another common substance is mace. The self-defense weapon form of mace is based on pepper spray which comes in small spray cans. Versions including CS are manufactured for police use.[24] Xylyl bromide, CN and CS are the oldest of these agents. CS is the most widely used. CN has the most recorded toxicity.[3]
Typical manufacturer warnings on tear gas cartridges state "Danger: Do not fire directly at person(s). Severe injury or death may result."[25] Tear gas guns do not have a manual setting to adjust the range of fire. The only way to adjust the projectile's range is to aim towards the ground at the correct angle. Incorrect aim will send the capsules away from the targets, causing risk for non-targets instead.
I do not agree with any type of chemical or biological agent,in any form, used against peaceful protesters. I don't see any harm in using it in full blown riots to disperse an angry mob seeking to set buildings on fire and endangering innocent peaceful protesters.
If my post bewildered you I can't help. The WP opinion piece should of made it pretty clear that I do not think that rioters and looters automatically equal antifa, a Redneck white hick with a rifle equal a trump supporter or a Black American in a BLM protest is equal to a looter. I'll join in healthy discussion but Im not here to amuse or explain my thoughts or opinions because they don't align.
When a news outfit has to put out counter propaganda everyone's spidey sense should tingle just the same as when trump and his gang say theirs .
To me. It sounds like you're saying the WaPo article differentiating Antifa from rioters/looters is propaganda. It isnt. It's pretty much just a fact. If that's *not* what your post meant to convey, then I invite you to explain it to me. That is the nature of a healthy discussion.
I'm so sick of hearing tear gas being called a 'chemical weapon'. That is such bullshit. They've been using teargas for decades and it's never been an issue until the last few years. Perfect example of moving the goalpost. Tear gas is not nerve gas for fuck's sake...
Just because people have only recently started objecting to certain practices doesnt mean it's "moving the goal posts". You dont have to like that people feel this way, but it is outlawed in warfare. The idea that something crosses a line in warfare but not in civil disobedience should raise your eyebrows
It makes you cry, it doesn't kill you. The reason it's outlawed in warfare is because they don't want to open that Pandora's box to interpretation. My statement stands...
So wait. Your argument is it's not used in military conflict because it might lead to more dangerous chemicals being used. Why exactly doesnt that rationale also apply to to using against civilians protesting? Do you think there arent countries in the world that have used more dangerous chemicals upon their civilians? Iraq and Syria come immediately to mind
Most countries use teargas on civilians when necessary and have for many decades. Military is a completely different application. Whatever negotiations went into military chemical weapons treaties is completely irrelevant.
... I'm not sure I'd say "Most countries ______ and have for decades" is a good argument for most things. For example, Many countries have persecuted LGBTQ people and have for decades. Doesnt make for a compelling argument for why we shouldnt try to stop our government from doing it now.
That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I haven't heard anything about LGBTQ people being teargased. Maybe I'm missing something?
If my post bewildered you I can't help. The WP opinion piece should of made it pretty clear that I do not think that rioters and looters automatically equal antifa, a Redneck white hick with a rifle equal a trump supporter or a Black American in a BLM protest is equal to a looter. I'll join in healthy discussion but Im not here to amuse or explain my thoughts or opinions because they don't align.
When a news outfit has to put out counter propaganda everyone's spidey sense should tingle just the same as when trump and his gang say theirs .
To me. It sounds like you're saying the WaPo article differentiating Antifa from rioters/looters is propaganda. It isnt. It's pretty much just a fact. If that's *not* what your post meant to convey, then I invite you to explain it to me. That is the nature of a healthy discussion.
I'm so sick of hearing tear gas being called a 'chemical weapon'. That is such bullshit. They've been using teargas for decades and it's never been an issue until the last few years. Perfect example of moving the goalpost. Tear gas is not nerve gas for fuck's sake...
Just because people have only recently started objecting to certain practices doesnt mean it's "moving the goal posts". You dont have to like that people feel this way, but it is outlawed in warfare. The idea that something crosses a line in warfare but not in civil disobedience should raise your eyebrows
It makes you cry, it doesn't kill you. The reason it's outlawed in warfare is because they don't want to open that Pandora's box to interpretation. My statement stands...
So wait. Your argument is it's not used in military conflict because it might lead to more dangerous chemicals being used. Why exactly doesnt that rationale also apply to to using against civilians protesting? Do you think there arent countries in the world that have used more dangerous chemicals upon their civilians? Iraq and Syria come immediately to mind
Most countries use teargas on civilians when necessary and have for many decades. Military is a completely different application. Whatever negotiations went into military chemical weapons treaties is completely irrelevant.
... I'm not sure I'd say "Most countries ______ and have for decades" is a good argument for most things. For example, Many countries have persecuted LGBTQ people and have for decades. Doesnt make for a compelling argument for why we shouldnt try to stop our government from doing it now.
From using tear gas and the implementation of it in protests and war to LGBTQ rights, very healthy and bonafide discussion.
If my post bewildered you I can't help. The WP opinion piece should of made it pretty clear that I do not think that rioters and looters automatically equal antifa, a Redneck white hick with a rifle equal a trump supporter or a Black American in a BLM protest is equal to a looter. I'll join in healthy discussion but Im not here to amuse or explain my thoughts or opinions because they don't align.
When a news outfit has to put out counter propaganda everyone's spidey sense should tingle just the same as when trump and his gang say theirs .
To me. It sounds like you're saying the WaPo article differentiating Antifa from rioters/looters is propaganda. It isnt. It's pretty much just a fact. If that's *not* what your post meant to convey, then I invite you to explain it to me. That is the nature of a healthy discussion.
I'm so sick of hearing tear gas being called a 'chemical weapon'. That is such bullshit. They've been using teargas for decades and it's never been an issue until the last few years. Perfect example of moving the goalpost. Tear gas is not nerve gas for fuck's sake...
Just because people have only recently started objecting to certain practices doesnt mean it's "moving the goal posts". You dont have to like that people feel this way, but it is outlawed in warfare. The idea that something crosses a line in warfare but not in civil disobedience should raise your eyebrows
It makes you cry, it doesn't kill you. The reason it's outlawed in warfare is because they don't want to open that Pandora's box to interpretation. My statement stands...
So wait. Your argument is it's not used in military conflict because it might lead to more dangerous chemicals being used. Why exactly doesnt that rationale also apply to to using against civilians protesting? Do you think there arent countries in the world that have used more dangerous chemicals upon their civilians? Iraq and Syria come immediately to mind
Most countries use teargas on civilians when necessary and have for many decades. Military is a completely different application. Whatever negotiations went into military chemical weapons treaties is completely irrelevant.
... I'm not sure I'd say "Most countries ______ and have for decades" is a good argument for most things. For example, Many countries have persecuted LGBTQ people and have for decades. Doesnt make for a compelling argument for why we shouldnt try to stop our government from doing it now.
That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I haven't heard anything about LGBTQ people being teargased. Maybe I'm missing something?
I was referring to the rhetorical argument. Just because something has been okay in the past doesnt mean it should be okay today. I just used treatment of LGBTQ as an example.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
There isn't even any point in continuing to post them, anymore than there is any point in having a discussion about guns when the next school shooting happens. Nothing has changed and nothing is going to change. We'll continue to be awash in weapons of every kind, police forces will continue to be corrupt and lawless, and we'll continue to march forward in our collective insanity while the rest of the world looks at us like carnival geek show. Horrified, but unable to turn away.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List. I'd post some of the cartoons from the time, but they are really nothing more than Nazi-level propaganda. People can Google "MLK cartoons" if the wish.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
No shooting. Im in those crowds most nights, I want to be here for the apocalypse thank you very much.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
Not worth burning down buildings and looting mostly black businesses though. There are better ways of achieving those goals in the modern era. Rioting and looting will get you four more years of Trump, not widescale change like you seem to think it will bring about.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
Not worth burning down buildings and looting mostly black businesses though. There are better ways of achieving those goals in the modern era. Rioting and looting will get you four more years of Trump, not widescale change like you seem to think it will bring about.
The exact same arguments were used in the 1950s that Black people shouldnt make so much noise or agitate for social equality. They should just "wait their turn". People point to MLK, but the civil rights was much larger than just him, and not all of those protests were 100% peaceful.
FWIW - it was also (like now) mostly people who werent subject to racial discrimination at that time telling the oppressed exactly how they should conduct their protests, too.
Here's an example of how conservatives thought of the Civil Rights in the 1960s.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
Not worth burning down buildings and looting mostly black businesses though. There are better ways of achieving those goals in the modern era. Rioting and looting will get you four more years of Trump, not widescale change like you seem to think it will bring about.
The exact same arguments were used in the 1950s that Black people shouldnt make so much noise or agitate for social equality. They should just "wait their turn". People point to MLK, but the civil rights was much larger than just him, and not all of those protests were 100% peaceful.
FWIW - it was also (like now) mostly people who werent subject to racial discrimination at that time telling the oppressed exactly how they should conduct their protests, too.
Here's an example of how conservatives thought of the Civil Rights in the 1960s.
Sound familiar?
You know what though? This isn't the 1960's, but you sure as shit can turn it into the 1960's if you want to treat modern times like they're the same as they fucking were back then. People aren't the same now and the same actions will 'not' garner the same results. Mark my words...
I do find it interesting that people assume that the 1960s protests were genuinely different from the ones happening today. Opponents of the civil rights movement, just like they do today, denounced the protests as violent and counterproductive and the protestors as radicals, all while police officers attacked protestors--back then, with batons and firehoses and dogs; right now, with batons and mace and tear gas and rubber bullets--and white supremacist civilians assaulted their enemies, knowing that the law would never come down on them.
I've never heard a criticism of BLM that wasn't also leveled at Dr. King and his fellows. The memes are all the same: "the protests are violent; they're just excuses to riot; they're hurting their own cause by being too radical; they're dangerous socialists; the protests are inconvenient and disruptive to everyday life; the people attacking protestors are actually just defending themselves from mob violence; activists would be more successful if they were quieter and polite and didn't offend white sensibilities."
These protests exist for one simple reason. Police officers murder black people and get away with it. That's not an opinion; it's an objective fact; we've seen it happen on tape countless times. How much longer can we keep denying the reality staring at us in the face?
We've seen police murder people on tape and not go to jail for it.
There's no reason our police force should have violent criminals in it. I am not any safer as a white woman because a black man was murdered by police in my area. I feel less safe when I can't trust the local police, and in all the years since Trayvon Martin was killed, the police have done nothing to make me think an officer would ever be held legally accountable for shooting me.
If a police officer killed one of the participants in this thread, any of us, I have no doubt that their killer would walk free.
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
Not worth burning down buildings and looting mostly black businesses though. There are better ways of achieving those goals in the modern era. Rioting and looting will get you four more years of Trump, not widescale change like you seem to think it will bring about.
I never get this argument.
These riots and protests are happening on Trump's watch, because of his dog whistling rhetoric.
Are people that stupid to think if Trump gets re-elected these protests and riots are going to stop? If anything they are going to intensify as he will feel empowered to move in more federal agents into the cities to confront anyone on the street.
Eventually there will have law and order, but zero liberty.
I do find it interesting that people assume that the 1960s protests were genuinely different from the ones happening today. Opponents of the civil rights movement, just like they do today, denounced the protests as violent and counterproductive and the protestors as radicals, all while police officers attacked protestors--back then, with batons and firehoses and dogs; right now, with batons and mace and tear gas and rubber bullets--and white supremacist civilians assaulted their enemies, knowing that the law would never come down on them.
I've never heard a criticism of BLM that wasn't also leveled at Dr. King and his fellows. The memes are all the same: "the protests are violent; they're just excuses to riot; they're hurting their own cause by being too radical; they're dangerous socialists; the protests are inconvenient and disruptive to everyday life; the people attacking protestors are actually just defending themselves from mob violence; activists would be more successful if they were quieter and polite and didn't offend white sensibilities."
These protests exist for one simple reason. Police officers murder black people and get away with it. That's not an opinion; it's an objective fact; we've seen it happen on tape countless times. How much longer can we keep denying the reality staring at us in the face?
We've seen police murder people on tape and not go to jail for it.
There's no reason our police force should have violent criminals in it. I am not any safer as a white woman because a black man was murdered by police in my area. I feel less safe when I can't trust the local police, and in all the years since Trayvon Martin was killed, the police have done nothing to make me think an officer would ever be held legally accountable for shooting me.
If a police officer killed one of the participants in this thread, any of us, I have no doubt that their killer would walk free.
Well said. People whitewash the 1960s protests, but there was a large amount of violence in them, rioting and looting as well. In fact, it greatly altered the demographics of most cities. And the violence then (not just by police or racists) greatly outpaced the violence of today. The street violence we see today is a mere fraction of what folks saw in the 1960s.
I think it's important for everyone on here to remember that there are several times as many non-violent, not national news generating protests than there are actual instances of rioting and looting. And to not conflate the two, as some people did with King in the 1960s.
This whole thing is required viewing (this is not the MLK you were taught about in school), but the specific remarks about why the northern cities saw riots instead of the more peaceful movements in the South is particularly on point to this discussion:
https://youtu.be/2xsbt3a7K-8
This isn't related, but the only thing I see more in Twitter responses lately than health-shaming of COVID-19 casualties is the "let's see the full context" crowd as the default response to any video of police brutality. If that context isn't sufficient, those same people are more than happy to go back as far as your elementary school disciplinary record to find ANY perceived out for the cop.
News flash: the Rodney King tape wasn't the "full context" either. King did flagrantly break the law by leading the police on a high speed chase. That did not give a gang of officers the right to mercilessly beat him to within an inch of his life. The remedy to that situation, by way of our supposed justice system, is arrest, arraignment on a charge, and a trial. The simple fact is that MANY people believe cops dealing out convictions and punishments is perfectly acceptable, because they don't believe it will ever be them on the receiving end.
Occasionally I will run across a courtroom clip on YouTube of a father of a rape or murder victim asking for 5 minutes alone in room with the convicted offender. Sometimes they just say it, sometimes they jump the barricade and go after them and the judge has to have them arrested as well. But the telling thing is not the reaction of the father (which is understandable). The chilling thing is that well over 95% of the comments, which are all some variation of "yes, let the father in a room with him while he's tied up and beat him to death". I simply don't believe a large section of the population even believes in the basic principles of how any of this works.
It does show another side to King than I've seen. Usually we focus on his brilliant oratory, but this interview shows his intellect and his perceptiveness. He didn't just have a passion and a way with words; he had a very keen understanding of human viewpoints... He saw a lot of things about popular opinion that other folks didn't, even today.
If my interpretation is correct, King is saying that the reason the north saw more violence is because racism in the north was more subtle, backed less by laws and more by customs, and that black people could only see regress instead of progress, which was easier to see in the south when discrimination was based on the law and could be targeted directly and visibly changed. It gave black folks in the north the feeling that you couldn't win.
Later, he brings up white people's sentiment on the subject of racial justice, and despite King normally being portrayed as the friendly face to white people, the one that white folks could get behind, he's actually pretty frank about criticizing white supporters of civil rights for supporting only a half-way approach to equality. He says a lot of white support was inspired by extremist violence against blacks and those who called for equality rather than more basic, everyday injustices like poverty. Fighting against segregation was easier to do than fighting for economic equality, and only a small few white folks actually wanted to fight to reduce the wealth gap.
I've also noticed that sort of half-heartedness myself, and frankly, when I think about racial injustice, the more dramatic acts of violence and discrimination do come up more often than the basic economic stuff. Being poor all your life is more damaging in the long run than having a small chance of being attacked a few times in your life, but the latter is easier to mobilize people around:
"Vacillation has always existed; ambivalence has always existed... I see white backlash as a continuation of the same ambivalence and vacillation of white America on the whole question of racial justice that has existed since the founding of our nation."
He brings up the economic legacy of slavery, and here we get to another really concrete problem unrelated to racial attitudes: after slavery was abolished, black folks were just left on their own. White folks were given free tracts of land to own and work as they arrived from Europe, but blacks received no such land or opportunities. They were just left to build up their own wealth from nothing while white folks were given one of the most valuable things a person can possess (especially in an agricultural society): land.
Black folks were then expected to make something out of nothing, and while he advocates trying, he stresses that it's not an equal situation when white folks started out with more wealth, with property that could last through the generations:
"I believe we ought to do all we can, and seek to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps, but it's a cruel jest to say to a bootless man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, and many Negroes, by the thousands and millions, have been left bootless as a result of all of these years of oppression and as a result of a society that deliberately made his color a stigma and something worthless and degrading." [emphasis mine]
I have to agree that wealth inequality isn't taken as seriously as the threat of violence. A lot of white folks are willing to oppose full-blown violence, but real equality also means economic equality. A world where black folks aren't subject to violence but still have a fraction of white folks' average wealth is still not a just and equal world.
Makes me reconsider my opposition to reparations for slavery.
For the record, this is what Trump said about the Portland suspect on FOX News, and it boils down to exactly what I was saying a few hours ago. He is leading a movement of people who aren't interested in anything but bloodlust, and laugh at the very idea of "justice".
"This guy was a violent criminal, and the US Marshals killed him. And I'll tell you something -- that's the way it has to be. There has to be retribution."
So, I can't believe this has to be explained, but that is most certainly not the way it HAS to be. In fact, if you don't want to live in an authoritarian state, it CAN'T be that way, and it certainly can't be advocated to be that way by the most powerful elected official in the country. This is just further proof that the Trump Republican Party is completely over the concept of any sort of American ideals, or even democracy itself. They don't believe in ANY of it. At all. And god only knows what happens from November 3rd onward.
I've been looking for a left leaning news outfit to use as a link to this story but I can't find one. Too bad people still judge by a books cover.
And this is so sad. I heard that protesters were at the hospital where the cops being treated yelling'I hope you fucking die' and blocking the entrances to the hospital?
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
Not worth burning down buildings and looting mostly black businesses though. There are better ways of achieving those goals in the modern era. Rioting and looting will get you four more years of Trump, not widescale change like you seem to think it will bring about.
The exact same arguments were used in the 1950s that Black people shouldnt make so much noise or agitate for social equality. They should just "wait their turn". People point to MLK, but the civil rights was much larger than just him, and not all of those protests were 100% peaceful.
FWIW - it was also (like now) mostly people who werent subject to racial discrimination at that time telling the oppressed exactly how they should conduct their protests, too.
Here's an example of how conservatives thought of the Civil Rights in the 1960s.
Sound familiar?
You know what though? This isn't the 1960's, but you sure as shit can turn it into the 1960's if you want to treat modern times like they're the same as they fucking were back then. People aren't the same now and the same actions will 'not' garner the same results. Mark my words...
Right, without Googling, can you tell me how many peaceful protests happened in the last 2 years? Can you name a single one of them? I bet you can't, and neither can most of the rest of the country. Riots don't come out of nowhere, and being murdered by the hundreds every years, while the murderers are PRAISED is gonna do it.
"I can't believe people are getting mad over being murdered. They won't get anywhere trying to fight back. Why don't do things civily and think the feelings of their murderers?"
Maybe you'd feel better if every black person in america laid down let themselves be murdered? Would that be more convienant?
I've been looking for a left leaning news outfit to use as a link to this story but I can't find one. Too bad people still judge by a books cover.
And this is so sad. I heard that protesters were at the hospital where the cops being treated yelling'I hope you fucking die' and blocking the entrances to the hospital?
Disturbing. I don't want this to translate into a lack of sympathy for ordinary officers. A shooting is not police reform; it's just another violent crime, and should be treated accordingly.
I'm not surprised the first story isn't reported much in left-leaning outlets. It's a local election for sheriff; the only reason Fox is reporting it as national news is because Fox's audience will be outraged by a transgender woman running for sheriff on an anti-police platform. It's clickbait.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
Comments
So wait. Your argument is it's not used in military conflict because it might lead to more dangerous chemicals being used. Why exactly doesnt that rationale also apply to to using against civilians protesting? Do you think there arent countries in the world that have used more dangerous chemicals upon their civilians? Iraq and Syria come immediately to mind
Most countries use teargas on civilians when necessary and have for many decades. Military is a completely different application. Whatever negotiations went into military chemical weapons treaties is completely irrelevant.
Btw: I'm pretty sure teargas is used by special forces and commandos so I'm not even sure it's completely illegal for the military to use it against non-military forces (ie: terrorists).
What makes a protest for a left wing cause cease to be peaceful? It's not enough to for people to be murdered. It's not enough for several people to be murdered. It's not enough for buildings to be burned and people to lose livelihoods. It's not enough that you chase the police out of their precinct for an extended period of time. Simply put, nothing is enough, because these people are the "good guys".
No matter who they hurt or what they destroy, the moment they face the slightest consequence for putting others in danger they act like they are being violently oppressed by the new Fourth Reich. It's a clown show.
And when police, or any of their ideological enemies, really, inevitably do get murdered as a result of their rhetoric, these rioter types are the first to celebrate. But oh man, let me kneel down in sorrow because they get the same treatment every other protest movement turned violent has gotten, despite the lack of concern for human life they display again and again and again.
I highly doubt a non lethal riot control agent crosses a line in warfare where people get heated metal shot through their bodies. It was obviously the deadly gasses that were the cause of the chemical weapons ban in warfare.
Getting tear gassed because they are beating folks in the street or worse doesn't make them braver than the average soldier. It makes them a danger to normal people.
... I'm not sure I'd say "Most countries ______ and have for decades" is a good argument for most things. For example, Many countries have persecuted LGBTQ people and have for decades. Doesnt make for a compelling argument for why we shouldnt try to stop our government from doing it now.
This is all well and good, but ignores the reason for many of the protests - such as systematic state perpetuated racism resulting in the consistent misapplication of force (Sometimes lethal) upon Black people. So apparently protests arent allowed to be violent in response to being the victims of disproportionate state violence. Got it.
I agree with one thing you've said - it is clown show.
Wars have laws. I dont know why everyone takes that so personally. It's rather obvious to me that banning all chemical weapons is a way to try to stop the potential slide into more dangerous chemical weapons.
Warfare
See also: Xylyl bromide § Use as a weapon, and Chemical weapons in World War I
During World War I, various forms of tear gas were used in combat and tear gas was the most common form of chemical weapon used. None of the belligerents believed that the use of irritant gases violated the Hague Convention of 1899 which prohibited the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare. Use of chemical weapons escalated during the war to lethal gases, after 1914 (during which only tear gas was used).
The US Chemical Warfare Service developed tear gas grenades for use in riot control in 1919.[18]
Use of tear gas in warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials", a treaty that most states have signed. Police and civilian self-defense use is not banned in the same manner. [19]
Tear gas was used in combat by Italy in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, by Japan in the Second Sino-Japanese War, Spain in the Rif War and by the United States in the Vietnam War.[20]
Tear gas exposure is an element of military training programs, typically as a means of improving trainees' tolerance to tear gas and encouraging confidence in the ability of their issued protective equipment to prevent chemical weapons exposure.[21][22][23]
Riot control
Certain lachrymatory agents, most notably tear gas, are often used by police to force compliance.[5] In some countries (e.g., Finland, Australia, and United States), another common substance is mace. The self-defense weapon form of mace is based on pepper spray which comes in small spray cans. Versions including CS are manufactured for police use.[24] Xylyl bromide, CN and CS are the oldest of these agents. CS is the most widely used. CN has the most recorded toxicity.[3]
Typical manufacturer warnings on tear gas cartridges state "Danger: Do not fire directly at person(s). Severe injury or death may result."[25] Tear gas guns do not have a manual setting to adjust the range of fire. The only way to adjust the projectile's range is to aim towards the ground at the correct angle. Incorrect aim will send the capsules away from the targets, causing risk for non-targets instead.
I do not agree with any type of chemical or biological agent,in any form, used against peaceful protesters. I don't see any harm in using it in full blown riots to disperse an angry mob seeking to set buildings on fire and endangering innocent peaceful protesters.
That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I haven't heard anything about LGBTQ people being teargased. Maybe I'm missing something?
From using tear gas and the implementation of it in protests and war to LGBTQ rights, very healthy and bonafide discussion.
I was referring to the rhetorical argument. Just because something has been okay in the past doesnt mean it should be okay today. I just used treatment of LGBTQ as an example.
There isn't even any point in continuing to post them, anymore than there is any point in having a discussion about guns when the next school shooting happens. Nothing has changed and nothing is going to change. We'll continue to be awash in weapons of every kind, police forces will continue to be corrupt and lawless, and we'll continue to march forward in our collective insanity while the rest of the world looks at us like carnival geek show. Horrified, but unable to turn away.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List. I'd post some of the cartoons from the time, but they are really nothing more than Nazi-level propaganda. People can Google "MLK cartoons" if the wish.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
No shooting. Im in those crowds most nights, I want to be here for the apocalypse thank you very much.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
Not worth burning down buildings and looting mostly black businesses though. There are better ways of achieving those goals in the modern era. Rioting and looting will get you four more years of Trump, not widescale change like you seem to think it will bring about.
The exact same arguments were used in the 1950s that Black people shouldnt make so much noise or agitate for social equality. They should just "wait their turn". People point to MLK, but the civil rights was much larger than just him, and not all of those protests were 100% peaceful.
FWIW - it was also (like now) mostly people who werent subject to racial discrimination at that time telling the oppressed exactly how they should conduct their protests, too.
Here's an example of how conservatives thought of the Civil Rights in the 1960s.
Sound familiar?
You know what though? This isn't the 1960's, but you sure as shit can turn it into the 1960's if you want to treat modern times like they're the same as they fucking were back then. People aren't the same now and the same actions will 'not' garner the same results. Mark my words...
I've never heard a criticism of BLM that wasn't also leveled at Dr. King and his fellows. The memes are all the same: "the protests are violent; they're just excuses to riot; they're hurting their own cause by being too radical; they're dangerous socialists; the protests are inconvenient and disruptive to everyday life; the people attacking protestors are actually just defending themselves from mob violence; activists would be more successful if they were quieter and polite and didn't offend white sensibilities."
These protests exist for one simple reason. Police officers murder black people and get away with it. That's not an opinion; it's an objective fact; we've seen it happen on tape countless times. How much longer can we keep denying the reality staring at us in the face?
We've seen police murder people on tape and not go to jail for it.
There's no reason our police force should have violent criminals in it. I am not any safer as a white woman because a black man was murdered by police in my area. I feel less safe when I can't trust the local police, and in all the years since Trayvon Martin was killed, the police have done nothing to make me think an officer would ever be held legally accountable for shooting me.
If a police officer killed one of the participants in this thread, any of us, I have no doubt that their killer would walk free.
I never get this argument.
These riots and protests are happening on Trump's watch, because of his dog whistling rhetoric.
Are people that stupid to think if Trump gets re-elected these protests and riots are going to stop? If anything they are going to intensify as he will feel empowered to move in more federal agents into the cities to confront anyone on the street.
Eventually there will have law and order, but zero liberty.
Well said. People whitewash the 1960s protests, but there was a large amount of violence in them, rioting and looting as well. In fact, it greatly altered the demographics of most cities. And the violence then (not just by police or racists) greatly outpaced the violence of today. The street violence we see today is a mere fraction of what folks saw in the 1960s.
This is just one year, albeit perhaps the worst: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long,_hot_summer_of_1967
And that doesn't even include the wave of riots after King's murder.
I think it's important for everyone on here to remember that there are several times as many non-violent, not national news generating protests than there are actual instances of rioting and looting. And to not conflate the two, as some people did with King in the 1960s.
This isn't related, but the only thing I see more in Twitter responses lately than health-shaming of COVID-19 casualties is the "let's see the full context" crowd as the default response to any video of police brutality. If that context isn't sufficient, those same people are more than happy to go back as far as your elementary school disciplinary record to find ANY perceived out for the cop.
News flash: the Rodney King tape wasn't the "full context" either. King did flagrantly break the law by leading the police on a high speed chase. That did not give a gang of officers the right to mercilessly beat him to within an inch of his life. The remedy to that situation, by way of our supposed justice system, is arrest, arraignment on a charge, and a trial. The simple fact is that MANY people believe cops dealing out convictions and punishments is perfectly acceptable, because they don't believe it will ever be them on the receiving end.
Occasionally I will run across a courtroom clip on YouTube of a father of a rape or murder victim asking for 5 minutes alone in room with the convicted offender. Sometimes they just say it, sometimes they jump the barricade and go after them and the judge has to have them arrested as well. But the telling thing is not the reaction of the father (which is understandable). The chilling thing is that well over 95% of the comments, which are all some variation of "yes, let the father in a room with him while he's tied up and beat him to death". I simply don't believe a large section of the population even believes in the basic principles of how any of this works.
If my interpretation is correct, King is saying that the reason the north saw more violence is because racism in the north was more subtle, backed less by laws and more by customs, and that black people could only see regress instead of progress, which was easier to see in the south when discrimination was based on the law and could be targeted directly and visibly changed. It gave black folks in the north the feeling that you couldn't win.
Later, he brings up white people's sentiment on the subject of racial justice, and despite King normally being portrayed as the friendly face to white people, the one that white folks could get behind, he's actually pretty frank about criticizing white supporters of civil rights for supporting only a half-way approach to equality. He says a lot of white support was inspired by extremist violence against blacks and those who called for equality rather than more basic, everyday injustices like poverty. Fighting against segregation was easier to do than fighting for economic equality, and only a small few white folks actually wanted to fight to reduce the wealth gap.
I've also noticed that sort of half-heartedness myself, and frankly, when I think about racial injustice, the more dramatic acts of violence and discrimination do come up more often than the basic economic stuff. Being poor all your life is more damaging in the long run than having a small chance of being attacked a few times in your life, but the latter is easier to mobilize people around:
"Vacillation has always existed; ambivalence has always existed... I see white backlash as a continuation of the same ambivalence and vacillation of white America on the whole question of racial justice that has existed since the founding of our nation."
He brings up the economic legacy of slavery, and here we get to another really concrete problem unrelated to racial attitudes: after slavery was abolished, black folks were just left on their own. White folks were given free tracts of land to own and work as they arrived from Europe, but blacks received no such land or opportunities. They were just left to build up their own wealth from nothing while white folks were given one of the most valuable things a person can possess (especially in an agricultural society): land.
Black folks were then expected to make something out of nothing, and while he advocates trying, he stresses that it's not an equal situation when white folks started out with more wealth, with property that could last through the generations:
"I believe we ought to do all we can, and seek to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps, but it's a cruel jest to say to a bootless man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, and many Negroes, by the thousands and millions, have been left bootless as a result of all of these years of oppression and as a result of a society that deliberately made his color a stigma and something worthless and degrading." [emphasis mine]
I have to agree that wealth inequality isn't taken as seriously as the threat of violence. A lot of white folks are willing to oppose full-blown violence, but real equality also means economic equality. A world where black folks aren't subject to violence but still have a fraction of white folks' average wealth is still not a just and equal world.
Makes me reconsider my opposition to reparations for slavery.
"This guy was a violent criminal, and the US Marshals killed him. And I'll tell you something -- that's the way it has to be. There has to be retribution."
So, I can't believe this has to be explained, but that is most certainly not the way it HAS to be. In fact, if you don't want to live in an authoritarian state, it CAN'T be that way, and it certainly can't be advocated to be that way by the most powerful elected official in the country. This is just further proof that the Trump Republican Party is completely over the concept of any sort of American ideals, or even democracy itself. They don't believe in ANY of it. At all. And god only knows what happens from November 3rd onward.
And this is so sad. I heard that protesters were at the hospital where the cops being treated yelling'I hope you fucking die' and blocking the entrances to the hospital?
What the fuck is going on guys?
This shit will get him re-elected!
*And wasting no time.
Right, without Googling, can you tell me how many peaceful protests happened in the last 2 years? Can you name a single one of them? I bet you can't, and neither can most of the rest of the country. Riots don't come out of nowhere, and being murdered by the hundreds every years, while the murderers are PRAISED is gonna do it.
"I can't believe people are getting mad over being murdered. They won't get anywhere trying to fight back. Why don't do things civily and think the feelings of their murderers?"
Maybe you'd feel better if every black person in america laid down let themselves be murdered? Would that be more convienant?
I'm not surprised the first story isn't reported much in left-leaning outlets. It's a local election for sheriff; the only reason Fox is reporting it as national news is because Fox's audience will be outraged by a transgender woman running for sheriff on an anti-police platform. It's clickbait.