Some Questions of Those on the Left who find Property Destruction Acceptable

[Aunt Antifa]

Oh...I think there is definitely validity to pointing out the cities and the ****holes the rat party has made them. If people that werent mindlessly skull****ed by the rat party have the opportunity to see the cesspools the rat party has created it might impact some undecided voters. The mindless o-bots...no...they will do what they have always done...and they will get the same results. And then they will piss and moan and cry about wanting 'change'.

Huh.

Okay.

 

[Tigerace117]

:lamo

Its not babbling...its simply factual. You and the other leftists CONTINUE to vote for the same piece of **** rats that have run Chicago since 1937. You OWN that cesspool. You own the ****hole in Minneapolis. You just make yourself look stupid when you try to blame the people that are NOT in power and ignore the responsibility of the people YOU put in power and people like you have put in power for 83 years.

Your corrupt piece of **** rat politicians YOU vote for have been in power for over 8 decades, and all they managed to do is destroy the black American families.

YOU did that.

Oh look, even more hysterical babbling from you. I’ll wait for you to provide the name of any current politician who was “in power in 1937” like you stated :lol:

You make yourself look stupid when you piss your pants screaming about how much you hate Democrats....which happens basically every single post. Nobody gives a **** about your pathological hatred.

Lol and yet, minorities still aren’t going to vote for the folks who wish it was still 1860 and they could be bought and sold like cattle. The Confederate party had shot itself in the foot so many times it’s hilarious.

All your hysterics, and minorities largely still won’t vote for your Confederate Party. YOU did that.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I have a question for those here on this forum who self-identify as political left-wing or left-leaning and who either find nothing to condemn about property destruction, vandalism, and/or looting, or find it even acceptable or laudable:

Why are you okay or even happy with it?

Is it because property destruction, looting and vandalism are crimes that you cannot summon moral outrage for because it is far less terrible when compared to unjustified police killings and abuse?

Is it because you cannot see the havoc it wreaks on the lives of those whose property is ruined (presuming it is private property) versus those of people who have been killed on video? Perhaps you presume that the property owners have adequate insurance coverage which will pay cover and make good their losses?

Or is it for less emotive and more ideological reasons? Is it because the property owners, whatever their ancestry or the means of their attainment of property, are the conscious or unconscious beneficiaries of a system that has oppressed black Americans and/or exploits workers and the landless, and thus they deserve the destruction visited upon their property? Perhaps you would hope that this destruction spurs systemic change as those with economic power plead with those in political power to better the situation of the permanent underclass in order to avoid further unrest which threatens their property?

All of the above? None of the above? Are there other reasons?

Keep in mind, this is not a "gotcha" or my opportunity to heap abuse on top of you. I genuinely want to know your reasoning and hopefully I or other members on this forum, left, right, center or non-aligned can have a civil discussion with you.

DISCLAIMER: Before anyone rushes to answer, please keep in mind that this question is NOT aimed at self-identified left-wing or left-leaning members of this forum who are against property destruction, looting and vandalism. Only for those who are not.

You haven't gotten any serious replies like you wanted because your entire post is a strawman. The left does not support violent rioters. Your OP is the equivalent of asking conservatives why they support the shootings of synagogues because they weren't vocal enough in condemning them the last time they happened.

 

[Felis Leo]

You haven't gotten any serious replies like you wanted because your entire post is a strawman. The left does not support violent rioters. Your OP is the equivalent of asking conservatives why they support the shootings of synagogues because they weren't vocal enough in condemning them the last time they happened.

First, I would point you to Lisa's response, RabidAlpaca. While she is not (yet) on the ramparts screaming "Burn, baby, burn!" she is not against property destruction.

Second, I am not attacking the left, RabidAlpaca. I have started with the presumption that most on the political left do not support property destruction or at the very least find it a small price to pay for social progress. I am inviting the small minority of those on the ideological left who do, and why they find destruction acceptable. I think Lisa puts her case the best, would you not agree?

 

[Felis Leo]

Have you eve heard of the Boston Tea Party? There are many times when only a few million people in the streets for a month or more destroying and protesting is the way that social and political changes happen. Look at the French. They will take to the streets and protest at the drop of a croissant and their have one of the freest and most progressive societies in the world.
Violent public protests are the reason we have voting rights, a 5 day week, unions, and workers rights, ended wars and minority rights for various groups. The damage is ultimately minor and insured, but the change that happens is often permanent.

The Berlin wall and the iron curtain didn't fall because of people writing angry op-ed letters. It fell in 1991 because millions of people in Poland, East Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other countries took to the streets and didn't go home until walls and dictators fell and were often publicly executed.

First of all, Lisa, thank you for answering. There is a possibility that social progress does occur only when the political classes sit up and take notice, and sometimes the only way for them to sit up and take notice is when they see their constituencies claim they have no form of redress other than to move from peaceful protest and instead run riot.

If we are to take the example of the Boston Tea Party, it is definitely a case in which property destruction was merited to some degree. However, something that separated our nation's colonial forefathers from the present situation is this: They had no means of redress for their grievances, and no means of having their voices heard through representation by the government imposing taxation upon the colonists to recoup the substantial losses to the British Crown due to the French-Indian War. And as much as I would love to be catty and pretend to agree with you that the rioters in mainly Democratic-majority cities are analogous to people suffering under a self-dealing Communist dictatorship, that would be too cute. Unlike the people who suffered under unaccountable monarchies and single-party Communist dictatorships, there are several means of redress through elections and Courts that people have that do not require running riot.

 

[Lisa]

First of all, Lisa, thank you for answering. There is a possibility that social progress does occur only when the political classes sit up and take notice, and sometimes the only way for them to sit up and take notice is when they see their constituencies claim they have no form of redress other than to move from peaceful protest and instead run riot.

If we are to take the example of the Boston Tea Party, it is definitely a case in which property destruction was merited to some degree. However, something that separated our nation's colonial forefathers from the present situation is this: They had no means of redress for their grievances, and no means of having their voices heard through representation by the government imposing taxation upon the colonists to recoup the substantial losses to the British Crown due to the French-Indian War. And as much as I would love to be catty and pretend to agree with you that the rioters in mainly Democratic-majority cities are analogous to people suffering under a self-dealing Communist dictatorship, that would be too cute. Unlike the people who suffered under unaccountable monarchies and single-party Communist dictatorships, there are several means of redress through elections and Courts that people have that do not require running riot.

I'll take this argument even farther. When has positive social or political change for the citizen majority ever happened that wasn't accompanied by mass protests and social violence? The abolitionist movement and John Brown were instrumental in ending slavery. The very existence of the US began when the colonies rose up against the king and risked their own necks in a noose to fight for separation from England. These people need to be remembered and publically lauded and their actions need to be taught in K-12 schools as to why we have the freedom and the quality of life that we enjoy. maybe if people were more willing to take to the streets we wouldn't have the policies, of Trump, the GOP, and the monied interests that support neo-conservativism. I was ready to take to the streets to protest the Florida "Brooks Brothers / Bush v. Gore" fraud the put Dubya in office and the 2004 election fiasco here in Ohio that kept him there.

Histry has proven that usually things need to buirn and occasiponaly a few people have to die before the powers that be decide to listen to the voices of their constitutients.

 

[Carleen]

I have a question for those here on this forum who self-identify as political left-wing or left-leaning and who either find nothing to condemn about property destruction, vandalism, and/or looting, or find it even acceptable or laudable:

Why are you okay or even happy with it?

Is it because property destruction, looting and vandalism are crimes that you cannot summon moral outrage for because it is far less terrible when compared to unjustified police killings and abuse?

Is it because you cannot see the havoc it wreaks on the lives of those whose property is ruined (presuming it is private property) versus those of people who have been killed on video? Perhaps you presume that the property owners have adequate insurance coverage which will pay cover and make good their losses?

Or is it for less emotive and more ideological reasons? Is it because the property owners, whatever their ancestry or the means of their attainment of property, are the conscious or unconscious beneficiaries of a system that has oppressed black Americans and/or exploits workers and the landless, and thus they deserve the destruction visited upon their property? Perhaps you would hope that this destruction spurs systemic change as those with economic power plead with those in political power to better the situation of the permanent underclass in order to avoid further unrest which threatens their property?

All of the above? None of the above? Are there other reasons?

Keep in mind, this is not a "gotcha" or my opportunity to heap abuse on top of you. I genuinely want to know your reasoning and hopefully I or other members on this forum, left, right, center or non-aligned can have a civil discussion with you.

DISCLAIMER: Before anyone rushes to answer, please keep in mind that this question is NOT aimed at self-identified left-wing or left-leaning members of this forum who are against property destruction, looting and vandalism. Only for those who are not.

Please tell me who thinks that vandalism is okay? What do you expect people to do about vandalism? What do you expect people to do about gun violence? How about both sides of the aisle get together and get this country on the right track. Do you see that happening? If you can answer that please shrare it with all of us because what is going on right now is nothing.

 

[Aurora]

When a minority power is subject to instances of perceived injustice, those instances are taken as a threat to the whole in the perpetuation of an unjust system. Criminal elements within a population employ this social dynamic as an excuse for criminal activity through rationalizing their criminal actions as acts of protecting the group.

The majority power has no such threat to the whole from instances of perceived injustice because they have the power. Criminal elements of the majority power are unable to rationalize threats to the whole as excuses for their criminal acts.

What's not to understand?

Perceived. It can mean anything you want it to mean.

 

[Aurora]

My answer is pretty easy: simply don’t give a ****. People committing any crimes should be arrested, tried, yada yada. But this just isn’t a widespread issue, and it’s certainly not the point of what’s happening.

Black people’s lives aren’t worth what white people’s lives are in this country, and it needs to stop. It’s entirely possible to be opposed to someone throwing a brick at a window AND want police violence against POC to end. The cynical ploy of mixing and matching both issues so that all protestors can be condemned along with BLM is transparent af.

White people need to let go of the idea that property is more valuable than human lives. Just the idea a few weeks ago that police were “guarding” statues should send everyone screaming from the room.

The businesses in big urban centers need to realize the risks are too high and pull out. The Targets, Autozones all need to find demographics that are just safer and far less risk. People with assets and small businesses need to leave. The trouble makers deserve the communities that are decimated. They are the reason. The mayors can wallow in their diversity and identity. Business will find safer havens.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The businesses in big urban centers need to realize the risks are too high and pull out. The Targets, Autozones all need to find demographics that are just safer and far less risk. People with assets and small businesses need to leave. The trouble makers deserve the communities that are decimated. They are the reason. The mayors can wallow in their diversity and identity. Business will find safer havens.

What percentage of national chains have been destroyed due to rioting? What are you basing this on other than a hatred of POC? And the reason these stores are in cities vs rural ****holes is because the rural ****holes don’t have the economic infrastructure due to years and years of GOP neglect.

 

[Aurora]

What percentage of national chains have been destroyed due to rioting? What are you basing this on other than a hatred of POC? And the reason these stores are in cities vs rural ****holes is because the rural ****holes don’t have the economic infrastructure due to years and years of GOP neglect.

Why would a company invest millions in a store located in a hostile and high risk area? There are other safer places to go. Those cities earned that hostile reputation on their own. Minneapolis joined the hell hole club.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Why would a company invest millions in a store located in a hostile and high risk area? There are other safer places to go. Those cities earned that hostile reputation on their own. Minneapolis joined the hell hole club.

Right, great, I’m familiar with the white fear porn talking points.

Are you going to tackle any of my previous questions? How about this, lets start here: can you cite your source for calling one area “high risk”? That’s a very specific term within planning and utilization departments, so I’m curious what data you’re using for its application here?

(My advice? We both know you just want to say the savages dont’ deserve nice things so I’d just refrain from replying. Everyone reading this exchange already knows you’re out of your depth.)

 

[Aurora]

Right, great, I’m familiar with the white fear porn talking points.

Are you going to tackle any of my previous questions? How about this, lets start here: can you cite your source for calling one area “high risk”? That’s a very specific term within planning and utilization departments, so I’m curious what data you’re using for its application here?

(My advice? We both know you just want to say the savages dont’ deserve nice things so I’d just refrain from replying. Everyone reading this exchange already knows you’re out of your depth.)

Depth, from someone who identifies with Antifa. That's rich. Evidence... ten days of riots , the most. costly riot in history. Consult the insurance industry, they know the costs and risks as your savages destroy everything in sight. Natural disasters are something beyond the control of man. Riots are completely in the domain of man. Who does the rioting, that is easy to determine.

 

[Aurora]

Right, great, I’m familiar with the white fear porn talking points.

Are you going to tackle any of my previous questions? How about this, lets start here: can you cite your source for calling one area “high risk”? That’s a very specific term within planning and utilization departments, so I’m curious what data you’re using for its application here?

(My advice? We both know you just want to say the savages dont’ deserve nice things so I’d just refrain from replying. Everyone reading this exchange already knows you’re out of your depth.)

Savages who destroy, they don't build . Savages destroy what others build.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Depth, from someone who identifies with Antifa. That's rich. Evidence... ten days of riots , the most. costly riot in history. Consult the insurance industry, they know the costs and risks as your savages destroy everything in sight. Natural disasters are something beyond the control of man. Riots are completely in the domain of man. Who does the rioting, that is easy to determine.

You’re dissembling.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Savages who destroy, they don't build . Savages destroy what others build.

Yes yes. You hate Black people. Got it.

 

[Aurora]

Yes yes. You hate Black people. Got it.

I hate savages. You inserted race into this. many of the savages are white trash , Antifa types, Marxist revolutionaries wannabe's.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I hate savages. You inserted race into this. many of the savages are white trash , Antifa types, Marxist revolutionaries wannabe's.

Right. Got it.

 

[bongsaway]

Maybe not in favor, exactly, but when the rioting and looting first started, I did see it described as not a big deal or as even necessary or, at the very least, as being understandable.

Like a hundred and sixty thousand dead, acceptable to some.

 

[bongsaway]

I for one have not seen anyone on here advocating looting and burning or violence. It's wrong but when people are pushed too far, they push back.

 

[X Factor]

Like a hundred and sixty thousand dead, acceptable to some.

Sorry but when you screech how Trump is a murderer because of Covid related deaths there is nothing to do but call out the stupidity in that.

 

[Aurora]

I for one have not seen anyone on here advocating looting and burning or violence. It's wrong but when people are pushed too far, they push back.

They are pushing back against innocent people. Now they have every right to despise the protesters, looter, rioters. Your cause just went to hell.

 

[bongsaway]

Sorry but when you screech how Trump is a murderer because of Covid related deaths there is nothing to do but call out the stupidity in that.

Find a post of mine where I say trump is a murderer. I'll wait.

 

[bongsaway]

They are pushing back against innocent people. Now they have every right to despise the protesters, looter, rioters. Your cause just went to hell.

Despise away until your heart is content. Once again republicans are on the wrong side of social change.

 

[marke]

When a minority power is subject to instances of perceived injustice, those instances are taken as a threat to the whole in the perpetuation of an unjust system. Criminal elements within a population employ this social dynamic as an excuse for criminal activity through rationalizing their criminal actions as acts of protecting the group.

The majority power has no such threat to the whole from instances of perceived injustice because they have the power. Criminal elements of the majority power are unable to rationalize threats to the whole as excuses for their criminal acts.

What's not to understand?

Of course undisciplined criminals are going to justify their theft and violence as somehow the fault of others. What is really bad is when elected officials support that deranged mindset as well and excuse it for political reasons.