Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A question regarding riots and protests
Topic Started: Feb 7 2017, 06:57 PM (656 Views)
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
So I've been thinking a bit recently after 2am and I were discussing the UC Bizarre-kly (intentional) squabble over some alt-right guys ego, and it got me to thinking about the justifications of actions taken by groups of individuals in response to perceived injustices by authorities.

In short...we often hear about protests and/or riots being "wrong", that there is no justification for the destruction of property, but what about the Boston Tea Party. That even was, by all accounts, a blatant act involving the destruction of property (right or wrong). Yet, many these days champion it as just another 'patriotic' action in the colonies fight against the British.

So I'd like to hear other opinions - was the Boston Tea Party (and other similar events) a riot? Perhaps it falls under (loosely) the definition of economic terrorism? Or was it patriotic? What about tar and feathering of tories?
"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Freaks
Member Avatar

Protesting as is isn't wrong, rioting is. Once you start pointless destruction of property and violence towards others that is rioting. At first glance the boston tea party would fit in with the pointless destruction of property BUT the two are actually quite different. They're so different that you can't really compare them to what people are doing now. The reason being, they were focused on something directly related to what they were protesting while people who destroy property now are just randomly doing so and things were still small enough/start-up at the time that it formed things. I don't necessarily think that was the way to go about it, however, nor them dressing up as Natives to do it. Many of those people who are rioting now are doing so just because they think they can and not because they're actually protesting anything. Mob mentality, things unplanned, they see somebody smashing things and they go and smash things too because it's a primal urge to do so. I feel bad for the people who have to clean-up the pointless wreckage and even worse for people who have been harmed by others assaulting them in the name of "protest". They are making it so that protesting is seen as a horrible thing but protesting has a valid reason for existing and for people to exercise it.

Also, no, tar and feathering is abominable. No person should have to go through that. Generally that goes for all harm and humiliation mob tactics.
Edited by Freaks, Feb 7 2017, 07:28 PM.
"I'll be the fella to save his Cinderella,
by turnin' her dream world into real life."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Attaburnsinhell

Oh god, two a.m. is the kiss of moderate death for the dems

Demos are fine for morale boosters and making politicians nervous, but if you take a lesson from the 2010 tea party, you use that crowd to get names, email addresses, facebook pages, just connect, connect, connect. And pick up the garbage, leave the sight eco fresh
The internet is the best place to organize, you can reach tens of thousands of people without leaving your sofa, and a cop cant bust you over the head or pepper spray you through your screen

Riots? I highly suspect that agent provocateurs are behind these anarchists, provoking prople to bust stuff, very counter productive
Edited by Attaburnsinhell, Feb 7 2017, 08:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

In short, I believe that illegal means of change are only acceptable when legal means of change are unavailable.

If authorities do allow legal forms protest, then I believe protesters have the right to break laws since no other option for protest is available to them and the authorities have only themselves to blame. But if legal methods of protest are available then I believe protesters should follow the law.

Similarly, if free and fair elections do not exist then citizens have a right to illegal or even violent means of change since no other options are open to them. But if elections allow for legal change, then citizens should respect the process.

I want to clarify here that in the first sentence of this post, the word "unavailable" doesn't mean "unsuccessful." If a movement is allowed to engage in advocacy, promote ideas and candidates and vote for them, then that makes change "available" to them. But it doesn't necessarily mean you will actually get change to happen. And if you don't, then that doesn't mean you can resort to illegal means just because legal means failed to achieve the outcome you wanted.

All the authorities owe any segment of the populace is a fair shot. If they provide that, then the populace should respect the law regardless of outcome. If they don't, then revolt becomes a morally acceptable option.
Edited by Two a.m., Feb 7 2017, 09:29 PM.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. B
Member Avatar
Member since 2004
Two AM makes a great point. I would add that peaceful dissent tends to become unavailable when big corporations or oppressive governments are in power. With the case of the Boston Tea Party, there was perceived collusion between the government and a large international corporation. The events behind the film "Newsies" are another great example. The nature of big corporations is to squeeze out the little guy. If it gets to the point that they don't even permit the little guy to redress his grievances, that is when the moral dissenter is a Robin Hood.

The case of Berkeley is different. Milo does not represent a big corporation but a small independent news blog, which is getting squeezed through its advertisers by rich elitist powers. There was no righteous moral outrage behind the riots, but senseless attacks on women, outnumbered men being beaten with metal poles, and shameful destruction of school property, all in the name of censoring someone's freedom of speech. The Tea Party activists were protesting their own lack of basic freedoms, they weren't trying to destroy other people's freedoms.

As a person very familiar with Berkeley and the Bay Area, I am always stunned by the radical leftists who live in their little bubble and think they are some kind of freedom fighters when they facistically beat up anybody who dares think differently than them.
Edited by Dr. B, Feb 7 2017, 11:35 PM.
#BringWilmyBack
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

If liberals are ready to fight to the death in a revolutionary war, they are entitled to a Boston Tea Party....Conservatives won't mind if liberals up the ante...It may be a good idea that liberals and SJWs first buy guns, learn to shoot them, build arsenals, and form armed militias with a bit of training....Of course, liberals should grow a pair if they take this route............ :oyvey
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sammy
Member Avatar

lucash
Feb 7 2017, 06:57 PM
So I've been thinking a bit recently after 2am and I were discussing the UC Bizarre-kly (intentional) squabble over some alt-right guys ego, and it got me to thinking about the justifications of actions taken by groups of individuals in response to perceived injustices by authorities.

In short...we often hear about protests and/or riots being "wrong", that there is no justification for the destruction of property, but what about the Boston Tea Party. That even was, by all accounts, a blatant act involving the destruction of property (right or wrong). Yet, many these days champion it as just another 'patriotic' action in the colonies fight against the British.

So I'd like to hear other opinions - was the Boston Tea Party (and other similar events) a riot? Perhaps it falls under (loosely) the definition of economic terrorism? Or was it patriotic? What about tar and feathering of tories?



Before one comments , think we need the facts...... Uncle Sammy :usa:

https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/boston-tea-party-facts
Please stay away from MARS
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
Fair enough, appreciate the input everyone.
"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StillCrazy1
Member Avatar
!!!!
People forget that protests work because there is the underlying threat of an out of control crowd if the protesters are ignored. The protesters who are unwilling to get mad and fight back are why protesters just get ignored these days.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ John F. Kennedy
Edited by StillCrazy1, Feb 12 2017, 06:48 PM.
Ever notice the only 2 people Trump refuses to speak ill of are Stormy Daniels and Vladimir Putin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Well if rioting is OK so should shooting the rioters.... :popcorn:
Edited by clone, Feb 12 2017, 08:17 PM.
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Freaks
Member Avatar

StillCrazy1
Feb 12 2017, 06:44 PM
People forget that protests work because there is the underlying threat of an out of control crowd if the protesters are ignored. The protesters who are unwilling to get mad and fight back are why protesters just get ignored these days.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ John F. Kennedy
Times change and so does the government.
"I'll be the fella to save his Cinderella,
by turnin' her dream world into real life."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Freaks
Feb 12 2017, 10:27 PM
StillCrazy1
Feb 12 2017, 06:44 PM
People forget that protests work because there is the underlying threat of an out of control crowd if the protesters are ignored. The protesters who are unwilling to get mad and fight back are why protesters just get ignored these days.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ John F. Kennedy
Times change and so does the government.
When you have large numbers of demonstrations like we have today, the public grows increasingly bored and irritated with the protestors...The protestors primary logical motive is then to feel good about themselves as they carry their cool signs...The publics primary logical motive to watch demonstrations is then to hopefully see protestors beaten , arrested, and disappeared...Of course conducting demonstrations and pleading to courts is the only game left for liberals to play...They are not running squat in government............ :rotflmao:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
12Plus1
Member Avatar

I don't remember any of the Boston Tea Party rioters running through town burning carriages and destroying people's businesses.

Of those who demonstrate a good percentage do so just to riot and cause destruction. Another percentage protest because they want to have their 1960's experience. That dilutes the message of those who want to protest to make a statement.

Clowns to the Left, Jokers to the Right
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr345
Member Avatar

Posted Image
un jour on se souviendra de ca comme on se souvient de ca
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
12Plus1
Feb 13 2017, 08:34 PM
I don't remember any of the Boston Tea Party rioters running through town burning carriages and destroying people's businesses.

Of those who demonstrate a good percentage do so just to riot and cause destruction. Another percentage protest because they want to have their 1960's experience. That dilutes the message of those who want to protest to make a statement.

No - but they did destroy business property. The point I was trying for was not that the group necessarily went after other businesses, but that they went after a business, period. They destroyed property that wasn't theirs for whatever ideological cause they had. How is that different than those in modern times? Answer: History and mythology. By the standards of that time period, the British (status quo) considered them to be nothing more than terrorists, lawless rebels. We as a nation, however, have mythologized these people and these events to make them culturally 'okay', while chastising similar if not the very same actions by others. Frankly, there's zero difference.

As far as the reasoning why - I'm not denying there are some elements within some protests who do it just to cause mayhem - but to summarily dismiss the entire protest without giving consideration to those within the protest who are genuinely, simply, trying to exercise their right to free speech and protest something they believe is wrong, is downright narrow sighted. It's dangerous even. People need to try and step outside their boxes and consider things in a much more nuanced manner. Not every protest is necessarily "just" a group of hoodlums (as some argue). But, that is how they get mindlessly painted. It's sad.



"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

lucash
Feb 13 2017, 10:58 PM
12Plus1
Feb 13 2017, 08:34 PM
I don't remember any of the Boston Tea Party rioters running through town burning carriages and destroying people's businesses.

Of those who demonstrate a good percentage do so just to riot and cause destruction. Another percentage protest because they want to have their 1960's experience. That dilutes the message of those who want to protest to make a statement.

No - but they did destroy business property. The point I was trying for was not that the group necessarily went after other businesses, but that they went after a business, period. They destroyed property that wasn't theirs for whatever ideological cause they had. How is that different than those in modern times? Answer: History and mythology. By the standards of that time period, the British (status quo) considered them to be nothing more than terrorists, lawless rebels. We as a nation, however, have mythologized these people and these events to make them culturally 'okay', while chastising similar if not the very same actions by others. Frankly, there's zero difference.

As far as the reasoning why - I'm not denying there are some elements within some protests who do it just to cause mayhem - but to summarily dismiss the entire protest without giving consideration to those within the protest who are genuinely, simply, trying to exercise their right to free speech and protest something they believe is wrong, is downright narrow sighted. It's dangerous even. People need to try and step outside their boxes and consider things in a much more nuanced manner. Not every protest is necessarily "just" a group of hoodlums (as some argue). But, that is how they get mindlessly painted. It's sad.



I'm still trying to figure out the protestors who trashed the Starbucks....That seems like slapping your momma in the face.............. :confused:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

These rioters are prime example why DeVos must do whatever is necessary and eradicate the Dept. of Education.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
12Plus1
Member Avatar

lucash
Feb 13 2017, 10:58 PM
12Plus1
Feb 13 2017, 08:34 PM
I don't remember any of the Boston Tea Party rioters running through town burning carriages and destroying people's businesses.

Of those who demonstrate a good percentage do so just to riot and cause destruction. Another percentage protest because they want to have their 1960's experience. That dilutes the message of those who want to protest to make a statement.

No - but they did destroy business property. The point I was trying for was not that the group necessarily went after other businesses, but that they went after a business, period. They destroyed property that wasn't theirs for whatever ideological cause they had. How is that different than those in modern times? Answer: History and mythology. By the standards of that time period, the British (status quo) considered them to be nothing more than terrorists, lawless rebels. We as a nation, however, have mythologized these people and these events to make them culturally 'okay', while chastising similar if not the very same actions by others. Frankly, there's zero difference.

As far as the reasoning why - I'm not denying there are some elements within some protests who do it just to cause mayhem - but to summarily dismiss the entire protest without giving consideration to those within the protest who are genuinely, simply, trying to exercise their right to free speech and protest something they believe is wrong, is downright narrow sighted. It's dangerous even. People need to try and step outside their boxes and consider things in a much more nuanced manner. Not every protest is necessarily "just" a group of hoodlums (as some argue). But, that is how they get mindlessly painted. It's sad.



If you re-read my post you will see that I don't dismiss the entire protest. I just state that those who use violence and those who just want to take selfies of themselves at the protest DILUTE the true message of what the protest is about.

News media will focus more on the smashed windows, the fires, etc. and hardly ever interview those who can intelligently state their concerns.

Clowns to the Left, Jokers to the Right
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
12Plus1
Feb 14 2017, 06:35 PM
lucash
Feb 13 2017, 10:58 PM
12Plus1
Feb 13 2017, 08:34 PM
I don't remember any of the Boston Tea Party rioters running through town burning carriages and destroying people's businesses.

Of those who demonstrate a good percentage do so just to riot and cause destruction. Another percentage protest because they want to have their 1960's experience. That dilutes the message of those who want to protest to make a statement.

No - but they did destroy business property. The point I was trying for was not that the group necessarily went after other businesses, but that they went after a business, period. They destroyed property that wasn't theirs for whatever ideological cause they had. How is that different than those in modern times? Answer: History and mythology. By the standards of that time period, the British (status quo) considered them to be nothing more than terrorists, lawless rebels. We as a nation, however, have mythologized these people and these events to make them culturally 'okay', while chastising similar if not the very same actions by others. Frankly, there's zero difference.

As far as the reasoning why - I'm not denying there are some elements within some protests who do it just to cause mayhem - but to summarily dismiss the entire protest without giving consideration to those within the protest who are genuinely, simply, trying to exercise their right to free speech and protest something they believe is wrong, is downright narrow sighted. It's dangerous even. People need to try and step outside their boxes and consider things in a much more nuanced manner. Not every protest is necessarily "just" a group of hoodlums (as some argue). But, that is how they get mindlessly painted. It's sad.



If you re-read my post you will see that I don't dismiss the entire protest. I just state that those who use violence and those who just want to take selfies of themselves at the protest DILUTE the true message of what the protest is about.

News media will focus more on the smashed windows, the fires, etc. and hardly ever interview those who can intelligently state their concerns.

Fair enough, I apparently misunderstood your points. :cheers:
"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
12Plus1
Member Avatar

lucash
Feb 14 2017, 06:43 PM
12Plus1
Feb 14 2017, 06:35 PM
lucash
Feb 13 2017, 10:58 PM
12Plus1
Feb 13 2017, 08:34 PM
I don't remember any of the Boston Tea Party rioters running through town burning carriages and destroying people's businesses.

Of those who demonstrate a good percentage do so just to riot and cause destruction. Another percentage protest because they want to have their 1960's experience. That dilutes the message of those who want to protest to make a statement.

No - but they did destroy business property. The point I was trying for was not that the group necessarily went after other businesses, but that they went after a business, period. They destroyed property that wasn't theirs for whatever ideological cause they had. How is that different than those in modern times? Answer: History and mythology. By the standards of that time period, the British (status quo) considered them to be nothing more than terrorists, lawless rebels. We as a nation, however, have mythologized these people and these events to make them culturally 'okay', while chastising similar if not the very same actions by others. Frankly, there's zero difference.

As far as the reasoning why - I'm not denying there are some elements within some protests who do it just to cause mayhem - but to summarily dismiss the entire protest without giving consideration to those within the protest who are genuinely, simply, trying to exercise their right to free speech and protest something they believe is wrong, is downright narrow sighted. It's dangerous even. People need to try and step outside their boxes and consider things in a much more nuanced manner. Not every protest is necessarily "just" a group of hoodlums (as some argue). But, that is how they get mindlessly painted. It's sad.



If you re-read my post you will see that I don't dismiss the entire protest. I just state that those who use violence and those who just want to take selfies of themselves at the protest DILUTE the true message of what the protest is about.

News media will focus more on the smashed windows, the fires, etc. and hardly ever interview those who can intelligently state their concerns.

Fair enough, I apparently misunderstood your points. :cheers:
OK, just don't let it happen again. :biggrin:
Clowns to the Left, Jokers to the Right
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply