-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
In Defense of Looting
- Thread starter signal
- Start date
- Status
At the end of the day it's a battle of hearts and minds as cliche as that sounds it's reality. We're not gaining support for the cause indiscriminately looting and burning down buildings and businesses.
Maybe I need to read up on something, which is why I'm asking. I'm reading the updates on what's happening. You said the killer was arrested because of damage to private property, help me out.
[edit] I guess not... I'll just respond with you've provided. I would say the killer was arrested because it was on camera and the reaction in the US and around the world has been disgust. Now that's a simple take, I think yours about damage to property appeared even more narrow.
Last edited:
I think they can be compared, but if you want to do a proper "all else being equal" evaluation, there's a lot of work to be done before it's possible to just say "It worked in this case, so it can work in any case." In the United States, the protest movements that have resulted in social change - most famously labor, suffrage, civil rights - have all included violent and destructive action. Meanwhile, look at something like the protests against the Iraq war: millions of people turning out, not a scintilla of policy change resulting.
This. If you cause unrelated harm, you will just turn more people away from your cause.
A big business like target will shrug off a store getting looted like it's nothing, but small businesses might be ruined forever.
Look at this example, and read the comments: https://9gag.com/gag/a9n70mW
And the people who are destroying and looting shit are not there to help clean it all up or rebuild the next day, they're not donating to the businesses they've destroyed.
I think reading those paragraphs asks a poignant question about property. When you at it from a perspective of colonialism and slavery and it's connection to modern policing, also modern poverty, it's easier to understand looting and what it means symbolically.
The ruling class loves that you're more concerned about people getting TVs for free at Target than actual injustices happening right this moment and in plain sight.
But what is our relationship to property? There are lots of people who don't have nice things, but we're so quick to cast judgement on them. But why shouldn't they have them? Police protect property. But knowing the history of this nation and the colonialist origins, who is often systemically denied property? Who has to work for wages that don't pay? Is our system just?
Its easy to see throughout history it hasn't been just and same can be said today.
Looting is inherently political, it challenges the notion of property symbolically. If you can have these nice things for free by looting, than why don't you have them? Why are people sleeping on the streets, while people enjoy big lavish mansions? If the only thing stopping you from having these nice things is the lethal force of the state, and not some moral justification, then property and who has access to it, becomes so arbitrary and cruel. If you look at the power structures and their histories, looting asks a philosophical question. Who is looting who?
In the end it just feels wrong to be concerned about looting and not black people being systemically terrorized by power structures propped up by white supremacy.
The ruling class loves that you're more concerned about people getting TVs for free at Target than actual injustices happening right this moment and in plain sight.
But what is our relationship to property? There are lots of people who don't have nice things, but we're so quick to cast judgement on them. But why shouldn't they have them? Police protect property. But knowing the history of this nation and the colonialist origins, who is often systemically denied property? Who has to work for wages that don't pay? Is our system just?
Its easy to see throughout history it hasn't been just and same can be said today.
Looting is inherently political, it challenges the notion of property symbolically. If you can have these nice things for free by looting, than why don't you have them? Why are people sleeping on the streets, while people enjoy big lavish mansions? If the only thing stopping you from having these nice things is the lethal force of the state, and not some moral justification, then property and who has access to it, becomes so arbitrary and cruel. If you look at the power structures and their histories, looting asks a philosophical question. Who is looting who?
In the end it just feels wrong to be concerned about looting and not black people being systemically terrorized by power structures propped up by white supremacy.
Last edited:
To me it seems intuitive that it's much more effective to control the actions of a trained police force that nominally answers to the public than it is to try and dictate how people should behave during civil unrest. If looting is intolerable, shouldn't our corrective energies go towards the Minneapolis PD's intolerable conduct that sparked it?
Read the whole OP and I still don't think it's a good idea.
And people that are not rich don't own anything? Looting only affects rich people, is this really what this is trying to say? If so it's a lie.
Once again, we're limiting the people affected by the looting to someone else, so when you loot you're saying "fuck you" to the cops? What about the owner of the shop or what have you? If this was the way, I would steal every persons money on the street, since they would not be affected and I would just be saying "fuck the cops", I'm sure they would understand.
I'm sorry I still fail to see what looting stores has anything to do with this whole thing. And I think it sets a bad precedent when we say it's okay and takes away from the message you're trying to convey
This right here shows it better than my words can describe, and why I still don't get it. A riot where you don't steal or loot can still not be a pacific riot.
And people that are not rich don't own anything? Looting only affects rich people, is this really what this is trying to say? If so it's a lie.
Once again, we're limiting the people affected by the looting to someone else, so when you loot you're saying "fuck you" to the cops? What about the owner of the shop or what have you? If this was the way, I would steal every persons money on the street, since they would not be affected and I would just be saying "fuck the cops", I'm sure they would understand.
I'm sorry I still fail to see what looting stores has anything to do with this whole thing. And I think it sets a bad precedent when we say it's okay and takes away from the message you're trying to convey
This right here shows it better than my words can describe, and why I still don't get it. A riot where you don't steal or loot can still not be a pacific riot.
Literally how can you know that? How? Do you know every single person who was involved in the looting and every single person who donated to the gofundmes of the damaged and destroyed businesses or who are providing support in person?
If looters are working to help other protesters like this, then how can you just assume that they don't care about the community enough to help rebuild?
EDIT: Removed video of looted target goods being used to provide aid to protest, because while the video is legitimate, the source is apparently an alt-righter
Last edited:
Which comments am I supposed to read, because it didn't take much scrolling to get to the comments calling blacks tribalistic monsters unsuitable for civilization.
The first couple ones, especially the one with the list of damaged properties. Including a library and under construction low cost housing projects.
A list of the buildings damaged, looted in Minneapolis and St. Paul
The list will be updated as more reports come in.
bringmethenews.com
As with all comment sections on the internet, scrolling too far is never a good idea.
They'd still be sitting on their hands and Chauvin would be free if there was no rioting and looting. Yeah it sucks that business are getting looted but nothing else is working. People are actually paying attention now. You can't turn away because it is everywhere.
You think that maybe could have been communicated directly and not through linking to a comment section filled with virulent racism?The first couple ones, especially the one with the list of damaged properties. Including a library and under construction low cost housing projects.
A list of the buildings damaged, looted in Minneapolis and St. Paul
The list will be updated as more reports come in.
As with all comment sections on the internet, scrolling too far is never a good idea.
Paying attention to the destruction and mayhem. Not the message.
Yes. Condemnation of looting here is an attempt to change the narrative, in order to make the oppressed minority look like they're the oppressors. Private property is so enshrined that it's a really effective tactic.
I just read the first three or four comments before making my post. Didn't expect it to be that bad further down. Apologies.
I don't pretend to super educated about the on the ground operations of every protest/riot ever but I certainly doubt that this is the first time protesters/rioters have done stuff like this. And I'm certainly not going to imply that none of those people give enough of a shit about their community to help out with the aftermath.
I don't think that's true. The message is getting out there as evidenced by protests forming all around the country.
If that Baldwin quote was realistic, wouldn't it be better to smash the stuff than carry it off to your house?
Specific to the US and it's undercurrent of tensions with causes worth making a ruckus for, I'd say I agree with the defense.
But around here I've seen personally groups of paid and organised protesters specifically with the intent of looting too often that I'm kinda wary of giving them all blank checks to be honest.
But around here I've seen personally groups of paid and organised protesters specifically with the intent of looting too often that I'm kinda wary of giving them all blank checks to be honest.
Nor will I, there are exceptions of course but I will say the majority do not. How often do you completely destroy things with the intention of putting it back together afterwards?
It's quite hard to come to an opinion when you never really hear from the people effected, just of what happened.
It would be nice to learn what happens to a lot of the people that actually had to go through this, but they often don't have a place to talk about it.
It would be nice to learn what happens to a lot of the people that actually had to go through this, but they often don't have a place to talk about it.
Except you literally did, you specifically said the people destroying and looting aren't going to be the people donating/helping to rebuild. What was that meant to imply if not that? Most of the time when I break shit tbh. If I break something, if I can fix it I will.
Great read I like it, but it argues in a complete marxist way. I don't know anyone who is not a socialist who would agree to that quote. Basically you can only agree If you are socialist or communist.
I don't think you necessarily have to be a socialist to recognize that the way wealth is distributed is unjust and that property rights are not inviolate, natural rights. One might argue that private property ought to be abolished, but one could also argue that it is sufficient to equalize racial representation in private ownership.
Why are you zeroing in on something I've retracted and clarified? There are exceptions And are you intentionally destroying things if you know youre going to have to put it back together afterwards? My guess is no. And also you you think the people burning down buildings are going to have the know how to put it back together the way they found it? Invest the time and effort into doing so?
Lol... you really think that?
Insurance and more fuel to their campaign to keep the middle class helping the rich instead of themselves and the poor.
This is a win-win for them.
It's a lose-lose for the people doing it to their own neighborhoods.
The looted target food and things are being given to the less fortunate. Couldnt care less about a milllion dollar corporation getting what they deserve. The shelves will get stocked right back up
You can't be so naive that you think the fucking -investors- will lose a single dime from the looting.
Hey hey, please delete that post. No need to signal boost alt-righters in a thread about black people fighting oppression.
Sure is a lot of concern trolling for corporations, tone policing going on in this thread about how to protest, and shaming forms of protest you disagree with, without taking the full context of what's going on and has been happening for centuries. But thankfully folks here are also criticising these disingenuous people. Not even someone who's read the article or Baldwin and MLK Jr quotes and saying even if they disagree with the looting they totally understand why it happens and the political purpose of it. If looting and destruction didn't happen, we wouldn't have the civil rights we have now. Revolution wasn't created by peacefully protesting at specific spots that are easily ignored by the powers that be.
At first I was confused but a look at her TL was pretty revealing, plus she's an associate of Colin Moriarty.
Defending the looting seems like a bad idea and a bad strategy. Nothing in the OP convinces me otherwise. It's indefensible by most people's standards and Twitter lefties take the conservative bait and end up defending something virtually impossible to defend, meanwhile allowing conservatives to muddy the waters as to what the riots are about. Don't take the bait, concede that riots are bad and then get to the core of the argument, which is that riots and political violence can be justified when there's systemic police violence against a group of people. Let the conservatives argue against that and not against a pro-looting stance you can't defend outside of your Twitter socialist bubble.
I guess you can agree to that but I think this piece is definitely arguing for the abolishment of private property and in favour of public ownership. That to me makes you somewhat a socialist. Merely increasing the number of capitalists or those who are allowed to become one isn't fixing the underlying isssue of oppression.
What did the protests accomplish?
Not that they were ever going to work anyway :/
If absolutely nothing is changing, and nothing is obviously changing, or it's changing for the worse, you gotta get your hands dirty.
Collateral damage is expected.
Jobs and businesses can be brought back people can't.
The people in power control the biggest fucking military on earth does anyone really think a peaceful protest will ever work? Gotta shake up the status quo, start damaging the bottom lines to get shit going.
Might as well give up if your only solutions to change are "just vote every 4 years" and "block a street for 30 mins" but we have seen on Era even street blocking is frowned upon.
Everytime I see people on twitter outraged at looting I look at thier profile and they literally never posted about the Floyd murder at all. In fact many only had posts defending cops. They say they care about the deaths of black people but it's only in posts where thier primary subject are the riots and the looting. Prior to the protests they said nothing. So basically they don't give a shit about the people killed by cops but the abuse of stores outrages them. Gtfo.
I understand that people are desperate to absolve the actions of the protesters but I've yet to see anything truly compelling or convincing to support that.
So much of the defence is this vague sophistry about systems of power, or a narrative on private property that disappears up it's own ass.
Nobody serious is actually crying for Target, and nobody seriously believes property is more important than life (because it's a false equivalence) but destroying and looting small businesses owned by people in the community trying to make it? What is the message in that? What is the accomplishment that one should be proud of?
Destroying the livelihoods of people on the same leg of the ladder as you, who are only trying to get ahead in life and have nothing to do with murderous cops isn't speaking truth to power it's just being a cunt.
So much of the defence is this vague sophistry about systems of power, or a narrative on private property that disappears up it's own ass.
Nobody serious is actually crying for Target, and nobody seriously believes property is more important than life (because it's a false equivalence) but destroying and looting small businesses owned by people in the community trying to make it? What is the message in that? What is the accomplishment that one should be proud of?
Destroying the livelihoods of people on the same leg of the ladder as you, who are only trying to get ahead in life and have nothing to do with murderous cops isn't speaking truth to power it's just being a cunt.
I believe that's the rational conclusion of challenging unjust hierarchy, but I don't think that's necessarily what this piece advocates. I think the point is more broadly that private property is contingent and subject to change, which may or may not include abolition.
Protests, demonstrations, riots, looting are all communal actions. They're less coordinated than they are informed by the circumstances around them, and a lot of people have linked to some great stuff in this thread about what could have led to it in this scenario. But when it's an expression of systemic racism injustice and long, long LONG term oppression, that has repeatedly been silenced and hushed and forced down for fucking ever, the question of morality shouldn't be about looting. It should be about how the country reacts to it, what the media says, what the politicians say. And if their concern is with the looting, the property damage, the low stakes results of mass demonstration, instead of the root causes of why such a thing happened you've got a fucking problem. People need to hear the damn wake up call and understand the issues at hand, and it isn't going to happen overnight, and this is going to happen again and again, but hopefully with time people will start to pay more attention and listen instead of crying about their damn tar-jay.
That's a nice way of saying "not condoning senseless destruction of people's businesses and livelihoods"
OP
OP
I get not everyone will change their stance on this, it's just maybe useful if people read some of the existing defenses in case they want to critique the rioting with those defenses in mind. That said, defending looting during protests is far from a 'leftie Twitter bubble' invention.
Last edited:
- Status