Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List • Hacker News Board

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#61

Post by beat » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #45

Pfhreak wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few clear, unambiguous riots. What is a protest that has a few looters or arsonists operating within it? I've seen plenty of events here in the Pacific Northwest that police have labelled riots that I would in no way call a riot. I think that the legal definition very much plays into the discussion, because it gives the police the power to tell the media that a riot occurred.

There was one in Chicago just over the weekend. Police declarations of riots are much more common than what you or I would call a true riot, but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that riots are a non-issue.

As a Minneapolis third precinct resident who saw what went down here, I saw the "looting" call in Chicago and immediately thought "Organized crime".

Something that happened here, as the protests kicked up, was organized robbery under the guise of looting. We'd see a van pull up to a boutique clothing/electronics store, and a group would pour out... a mix of "looters", lookouts, and security. They'd smash the store, grab the best stuff, toss it into the van, and roll away in minutes. That's not "looting". That's organized crime. And, because Minneapolis police were too busy tear-gassing peaceful protesters to bother protecting residents or property, it was easy.

So Chicago... after a police shooting, someone immediately goes online and calls for looting downtown, where all the nice boutiques are. Which, of course, creates plenty of cover for these organized teams to clean out stores. In other words, there's a fundamental difference between an organized crew robbing a boutique clothing store, and a poor mother walking out of a "looted" Target with a grocery cart full of diapers and food.

The public conversation, of course, lacks such distinctions.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#62

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #54

acephal wrote: post #48

I'm very very surprised that the number one parallel has yet to ever be mentioned in these kinds of discussions: the 2005 Paris riots. French police were held responsible for the deaths of North African teenagers and riots broke out all over suburban Paris that caused waaay more property damage than anything we've seen in America this summer. French media framed the entire issue as brown people showing their true col…

> (same thing in Germany where you have to pass a cultural test to gain citizenship, imagine such a thing in America! [And no, answering questions about the constitution, the foundational legal document, is not the same thing]). I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, I kind of like that we're more liberal than Germany or France on this. I don't like how liberals in the U.S. fail to appreciate that fact and…

What does liberal mean? Surely it depends what's on the test - "culture" could mean anything.

Take a liberal policy (no guns, no death penalty etc) - now test people who fail to adopt those cultural values; are you less liberal for testing people, or more liberal for testing them on liberal values? Seems like one word is being used to describe multivariate dimensions.

In this case the opposite of not having these kinds of tests are racism/xenophobia, because you implied not having them would be a counterpoint to such a reputation.

TBH, I think people cling too much to ideals and maxims to avoid the complexity of reality, then something happens, reality catches up, the maxim weakens, and the pendulum swings the other way. It's easily possible to be too (or naively) liberal, there are many examples of this e.g the existence of an Italian mafia dismissed as anti-migrant xenophobia - until the FBI proved they existed; anyone who dismisses such issues as "price worth paying (for liberty)" has no plan, and quickly find many of their countrymen disagree. The truth is, culture needs to adapt to environment, and if society doesn't do that by conscious design, it'll happen anyway through social economics.

The truth is, multiculturalism is a massive generalisation over "cultures" that suggests we might all get along, if X, and without losing individual group cultural identity - truth is, not all cultures are alike, not all values are beneficial, and even the multiculturalism has implicit maxims that make it a kind of culture in itself; How can you tolerate the intolerant? How can you promote freedom, and avoid Eurocentrism, if freedom is a Eurocentric value (or at least, the source of you definition of "freedom").

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#63

Post by nitrogen » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #54

acephal wrote: post #48

I'm very very surprised that the number one parallel has yet to ever be mentioned in these kinds of discussions: the 2005 Paris riots. French police were held responsible for the deaths of North African teenagers and riots broke out all over suburban Paris that caused waaay more property damage than anything we've seen in America this summer. French media framed the entire issue as brown people showing their true col…

> (same thing in Germany where you have to pass a cultural test to gain citizenship, imagine such a thing in America! [And no, answering questions about the constitution, the foundational legal document, is not the same thing]). I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, I kind of like that we're more liberal than Germany or France on this. I don't like how liberals in the U.S. fail to appreciate that fact and…

Different parts of the US exemplify the full spectrum of tolerance to xenophobia. Our bests are pretty darn good (not near perfect), but the variance is high.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#64

Post by tomatotomato37 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

jetzzz wrote: post #33

A lot of people in this thread seem to have some false dichotomy in their mind - either you are peacefully protesting or you are rioting by burning random cars and destroying uninvolved storefronts. There is another option: peacefully protest but try to occupy administrative buildings and only use violence as a response to police violence. This is what happened in many post-USSR countries in the so called "colour rev…

I would argue that both CHAZ and that siege with the national park that happened a few years ago would fall into that third category of "non-collateral violence", for lack of better words.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#65

Post by nitrogen » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #60

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusal to denounce rioting can be problematic, but I'm not comfortable equating it with support. If people came by demanding that I denounce some random riot, I wouldn't do it, not because I'm pro-riot but because I reject the implication that the rioters have anything to do with me. I've been quite surprised seeing how many people will condone rioting, but I'm still confident it's a small minority, shrinking to a b…

I don't know if you've heard, but it's no longer enough to simply be "not in favor of riots", you must now be "actively anti-riots" — or so goes that other talking point.

Indeed we've gone from "if you're not with us you're against us" to "if you're not afainst them hard enough you're with them".

It's divisive and contributes to the conflicts that keep us from finding common ground.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#66

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

jetzzz wrote: post #33

A lot of people in this thread seem to have some false dichotomy in their mind - either you are peacefully protesting or you are rioting by burning random cars and destroying uninvolved storefronts. There is another option: peacefully protest but try to occupy administrative buildings and only use violence as a response to police violence. This is what happened in many post-USSR countries in the so called "colour rev…

If I pointed a gun at your head, I'm being non-violent, no? Of course, you might reasonably shoot me if I tried.

Threatening anything, by compromising the security of something, is not neutral; occupying buildings is not either. Neither is wearing a mask and showing up in large, angry groups: even if you do no harm, you are still threatening. Even if the majority commit no crime, they might provide cover for those who do.

To me, the whole appeal of protest in this form is less about an accurate expression of feeling, opening up and appealing to the out-group, than it is about threatening harm, often is a sloppy, undifferentiated manner (e.g. public stores/car are at risk, messages are mixed).

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#67

Post by nickff » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #63

rayiner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (same thing in Germany where you have to pass a cultural test to gain citizenship, imagine such a thing in America! [And no, answering questions about the constitution, the foundational legal document, is not the same thing]). I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, I kind of like that we're more liberal than Germany or France on this. I don't like how liberals in the U.S. fail to appreciate that fact and…

Different parts of the US exemplify the full spectrum of tolerance to xenophobia. Our bests are pretty darn good (not near perfect), but the variance is high.

US law/regulatory policy may be a good measure, and is definitely less xenophobic than than of many/most European governments. The best example is what happens with refugees and immigrants, who are treated as interlopers in France; American policy is 'skeptical' of refugee claimants, but much more likely to permit them to settle and work if the claim is accepted.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#68

Post by devnull255 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:22 PM UTC

This is a fantastic article and reading list. I'm disappointed at how so much of the discussion around the most recent rioting has devolved to being pro-protest vs anti-rioting. The riots, like the spread of the pandemic are symptoms of wide-spread, systemic failures in our social, political and economic institutions.

The psychologist Stephen Pinker, has pointed out that violence itself is a tool of last resort in the human toolkit. The violence of rioters is mostly spontaneous and fueled by anger, flamethrowers and sledge hammers directed at objects belonging to a system they feel has not responded to their needs or concerns. The fact that violence is not the best tool for the job is irrelevant by this point.

Cooler, smarter and more sympathetic heads should actually focus more on what triggered the riots and determine the changes that are necessary to remediate legitimate grievances and hopefully prevent the recurrence of such failures. The reading list offers an excellent beginning for that. Discussing the efficacy and justification for rioting probably doesn't.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#69

Post by mcguire » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

packetlost wrote: post #28

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusal to denounce rioting can be problematic, but I'm not comfortable equating it with support. If people came by demanding that I denounce some random riot, I wouldn't do it, not because I'm pro-riot but because I reject the implication that the rioters have anything to do with me. I've been quite surprised seeing how many people will condone rioting, but I'm still confident it's a small minority, shrinking to a b…

Refusing to denounce rioting is almost always paired with something along the lines of "rioting is the language of the unheard" or "our organizations will not denounce any black person’s display of grief and/or rage", as is the literal case with one of the organizations from my hometown [0]. I cannot see that as anything but support. But trying to justify actions, you are, by definition, supporting those actions. To…

"If you are not with us, you are against us."

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#70

Post by EricE » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

john_moscow wrote: post #51

packetlost wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'd be surprised at how many (particularly young) people and leadership from organizations either refuse to denounce or outright condone rioting.

Many young people don't feel secure about their own lives. Priced out of property ownership, didn't find a serious partner to make family with, don't have a rewarding job. By supporting the rioters they feel like they are attacking a common enemy (people that are better off). Except, it won't work. The rioters are destroying one of the last remaining pillars of the middle class - small businesses. Sure, Walmart and A…

"Many young people don't feel secure about their own lives. Priced out of property ownership, didn't find a serious partner to make family with, don't have a rewarding job."

Good grief - by this logic the entire country would have been continually rioting during the great depression.

Many of the current rioters are rioting because it's fun and/or a way to get free stuff. No need to make it more complicated than that.