(06-01-2020, 11:49 AM)JagJohn Wrote: I think it's important to recognize that the people we have seen on the streets of America (and the world) over the last few days and nights are not one homogenous group with the same goals and intentions. There are three, or maybe four, groups of people:

1. Peaceful protesters: it's important to lead with this because, although at times it may seem otherwise, this is by far the largest group. These people are taking to the streets to peacefully protest two things:
a) the event that triggered it all: George Floyd being callously murdered in the street by a white police officer, and the lack of immediate justice in the other 3 officers not being arrested yet.
b) how that event is part of a much larger thing: racial injustice in American society.

You don't have to agree with those things, I know most of you on here won't agree, but they are the reasons for the protests

As I said, this group is made up of by far the most people, but they get a disproportionately small amount of coverage from the media due to the age-old modus operandi: if it bleeds it leads. Rightly or wrongly, the violence, vandalism, looting, etc is always going to be shown first. But make no mistake, the majority of the people out there on the streets everyday, in American cities and other places across the world, want to peacefully protest an issue that is massively important to them. These people should be commended, in my eyes.

https://twitter.com/killerbeemma/status/...35716?s=20

100% Agree.  Those who voice their opinion peacefully are to be commended.  They are exercising their God Given right to demonstrate.  Whether I agree or disagree with their message, peaceful expression is 100% the way to go.  

2. Violent protesters. This is where the moral judgment becomes more complicated. These are people who absolutely believe the same things as the first group, but clearly feel their voices will not be heard unless they do something that makes the world sit up and take notice. This may be just a visceral, emotional reaction to the pain that is felt from the causes of this unrest. I personally do not believe in the use of violence to make a point, but it in no way takes away from the causes of that violence.

100% Disagree.  The Moral Judgement is not complicated at all.  George Floyds death was morally wrong.  Why was it morally wrong?  Because he has the human right to life, and there was no justifiable reason to take his life.  Likewise other people have their rights to private property, safety etc.  You don't advocate for people to respect your rights by casually violating theirs.  That's not a coherent argument.  Even in the extreme case of an armed rebellion or revolution or war.  In that case you target the institution that you are trying to separate from to achieve a strategic purpose.  It's a lot different than just random senseless violence against innocent people.  

3. Agitators. These are people who want to use the situation to further a political cause or ideology they believe in. In some cases, racial injustice may be a part of that, but their overall aims go far beyond the original reasons why people are protesting. This group could include people from different sides of the left-right divide, but ironically they generally share one goal, to use moments of conflict to help them rip down the existing societal structure and replace it with their own version. Obviously, we need to be wary of these people.

100% Agree.  Group one had a chance for reasoned discourse and advancing the cause of common citizenship, empathy, fellowship etc.  Its said that there are so many obstructions to what could have been a moment of national unity.  

4. Opportunists. People who may or may not be passionate about the cause, but primarily are interested in taking advantage of the unrest to benefit themselves in some way. The most common form of this is looting. Obviously this behavior should be condemned. However, it's still hugely important to look at the reasons why it is happening.

We know why it's happening.  Free Stuff feels good. 

I think it's vital to look at the unrest in these terms for a few reasons:
1. To make sure the message of the masses is not lost by the actions of the few.
2. To honestly evaluate why each of these groups exists, why they are acting like they are, and what can be changed to avoid seeing this happen again. Again, I am not condoning the actions of violent protesters, agitators or opportunists, I am highlighting the need to identify why they act the way they do.

There are two branches of behavior.  Social, and anti-social.  By that i mean that on the one hand there are certain people who act in a way that fundamentally values the rights of others.  From that perspective there are a lot of people who can reasonably or even heatedly disagree, but have a discussion that respects the rights of everyone to express themselves.  That's part of the American Fabric.  We don't all have to agree, we just have to agree on the rules about how we interact with each other.  There will always be a myriad of topics to have constructive discourse on, some big and some small.  

The second branch is where the looters and the agitators come in.  Burning a police car isn't about having a national discussion promoting peace or understanding.  That's just wanton violence.  There's nothing about racial equality in stealing a big screen.  That's just about you taking stuff.  There will be myriad rationalizations for those actions either to advance a political agenda or to participate in the blanket of a larger cause, but in reality that's just about the base human desire to hurt or injur others for self gain. 

The role of the Police (ironically) is to protect Group 1 (And the citizens at large) from all the other interests so that conversations can be heard, however inflammatory, and the rights of everyone can be protected.

---