« first day (3555 days earlier)      last day (112 days later) » 

12:00 AM
@Mithrandir24601 I don't know about this, but do you really think public opinion will support demonstrations which include violence and riots, in this case?
@Mithrandir24601 It has been in mainstream media for a long time, and not seldom.
@Mithrandir24601 Good question.
I don't know.
 
For two days now we have seen more violence from the police than we have from the protesters. The looters are a different issue.
 
I would have waited until the pandemic was over, or started twenty years ago, and organised peaceful mass demonstrations with a million people in the capital.
Hard to do, though...
 
@Cerberus Sure. No-one's done anything about it, so standard sitting about having (smaller) demonstrations when something happens clearly doesn't have any effect i.e. is getting ignored
@Cerberus Yes, because it's not getting smaller, the protests are spreading
 
@Cerberus are you aware of the controversy with the church across the road from the White House and Trump's photo op yesterday?
 
@Mithrandir24601 From what I have heard, things have been tried (training for policemen and other things), but not nearly enough.
 
12:04 AM
@Jolenealaska And this perfectly demonstrates the problem, especially when contrasted with how they dealt with the (largely white) protestors who wanted lockdown to end
 
@Mithrandir24601 Well, protesters aren't public opinion? Only a small fraction of the public is taking part.
@Jolenealaska Uhh I skipped that bit.
 
@Cerberus OK, here's a Reuters article from an hour ago
 
@Cerberus that one's a doozy. You should know about that, it's important.
 
At any rate, from what I have read, violence rarely helps demonstrations achieve their goals. But, who knows, maybe this is an exception.
 
> 64% of American adults were “sympathetic to people who are out protesting right now,” while 27% said they were not and 9% were unsure.
 
12:07 AM
> Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats said they supported peaceful protests but believed property damage undermined the demonstrators’ cause. Less than one quarter of Americans said violence was an appropriate response.
So I would say people (still?) support the demonstrations despite the violence.
 
@Cerberus Yes, this is exactly what I'd say
 
Oh.
So my point was that violence wasn't a good strategy.
 
@Cerberus Oh, sure, I agree, it's not
 
The point was adequately made with the police department. I'm not going to be real happy with any further damage and I would never have supported private property damage, but shit happens.
 
Also that ^
 
12:09 AM
As far as violence against humans, we're against it. That's kind of the point.
 
I certainly know violence won't help any demonstration win my support, except in extreme cases.
 
@Cerberus How extreme does it have to get, because it's worth remembering that it's the police here who are being far more violent
Well, police, national guard and potentially the army
 
Even when it is for a cause I strongly support, I will turn my back on a movement the moment it becomes (more than incidentally) violent.
@Mithrandir24601 Good question. In this case, it's certainly not extreme enough.
 
My world went completely upside down when I watched a news crew under fire on live television the day after I saw the news crew from the other outfit arrested.
 
I will still support the cause, of course, even if the (main) movement demonstrating for it turns violent; but I will no longer support the movement.
 
12:12 AM
Like, it's not the protestors calling in the army, they're (largely properly) exercising their constitutional right (although I hate calling things a 'constitutional' right, it's like you only have that right because someone wrote it in a document a couple of hundred years ago?? You have that right because you're human)
 
Have you seen the vicious punch that landed on the Australian reporter?
 
I think the American police are horrible, did I say that before?
And this proves it once again.
 
@Cerberus How do you support the cause but not the movement?
 
@Cerberus My history teacher said something once. He was the rare sort of history teacher - he was there. He witnessed the aptly named bloody Sunday first hand. It's interesting, because he says that he would be unable to kill for his country, but he'd be willing to die for it
 
@Jolenealaska Could be many things. For example, I would support any measures taken to curb police violence, but I would also support arresting violent protesters, and preventing violent protests (if possible...).
@Mithrandir24601 Uhh which bloody Sunday?
There have been too many...
America is not Nazi Germany.
I would support violence against the German occupation.
 
12:20 AM
@Cerberus I think it's there that we start to part company. If you're a young black man in America, you are in constant peril from police who might very well kill you. You and I might not face stormtroopers on a regular basis, but young black men do in this country.
 
I know the situation is bad.
But the Germans killed three millions Jews in a year.
The American police kills a thousand people in a year.
Not to mention the many more millions the Nazis killed.
 
I feel the need to respond very well to that.
 
What's wrong with demonstrations without violence?
Disrupt traffic, block police stations, etc.
 
Of course words are completely escaping me.
 
Well.
No need for political discussions anyway.
This is the Cooking room!
 
12:37 AM
Do you guys know of this room? This is Fine:chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/64176/this-is-fine
Way too much Twitter for me to hang there all the time, but it's always eye-opening.
 
What is it about?
I think I have heard of it...
 
Constant current events
very unapologetically left
Only news items are to be starred
It's honestly kind of an acquired taste.
But it's a good place to vent as long as you're venting in the same direction as everyone else.
One of the users ( at least ) is a self-described anarchist.
 
12:56 AM
Haha.
I have some very left-wing friends.
And some rather right-wing friends.
And everything in between.
I kind of like the balance.
And I agree with none of them on everything.
 
 
7 hours later…
GdD
8:21 AM
@Cerebus, the problem is that the vast majority of people in the protests are peaceful, but there are individuals and groups of people who tag along with the peaceful protests for the purpose of looting or starting violence. Social media has helped groups form, but because there's a lack of leadership and organization social media also helps the violent and criminal elements to join protests.
Some of these people start violence with the intent to devalue the message. These are sometimes far-right groups and there have been cases in the past where police in disguise have started violence in protests to give the police the excuse to escalate. It's a nasty tactic.
Some of the violence is started by the protesters no doubt, which is unfortunate, but to me the message is clear. When a non-violent protest is broken up by violence so the president can have a photo op you know that there's a fundamental issue.
 
 
2 hours later…
10:32 AM
@Cerberus this one in 1972 specifically
@Cerberus Honestly, I think this is a good place to be :)
 
 
2 hours later…
12:19 PM
@GdD Yup. When there's police violence in response to a peaceful protest, there's an issue all right
 
12:37 PM
@GdD Yes, all true.
But people here were advocating violence.
@Mithrandir24601 Right, it is rarely a good idea to use the army against citizens.
Should only be done when it's absolutely necessary. Which is almost never.
 
Yup. I can't think of any time when it would be a good idea
 
Maybe if you have an armed uprising that completely overwhelms the police.
 
@Cerberus Yes, I call them 'terrorists' :P
 
Mmm I don't think it should be needed with terrorists?
Terrorists are usually small groups with very limited weapons.
 
and well, if they have legitimate complaints, listening to them will go a lot further than shooting them
 
12:42 PM
Naturally.
 
Okay, but aren't those more than terrorists?
And did it really help, using the army against them?
 
@Cerberus I'd refer to them as 'terrorist organisations'
(or 'paramilitaries')
 
Right.
Normally, a criminal with a weapon is dealt with by the police.
An armed organisation that has declared war on you is dealt with by the army.
When the lines are blurred, it becomes difficult.
 
Yup. I know in the troubles, the UK put the special forces in NI - that, at least, makes sense from the point of view of what the special forces do
 
 
6 hours later…
6:59 PM
Ouch. That was just-in-time. Harvested the last of the elderflowers for this season’s what-nots and the rain started as I was closing the door.
Keep your fingers crossed that the wild yeasts are strong in them!
There’s now a ten liter bucket sitting in my kitchen.
*If* everything goes well, it should turn into a fizzy drink within a week.
 
Ash
That sounds like fun!
 
7:19 PM
@Ash it is! I am sort of into everything yeasty and bubbly.
 
Ash
Those are pretty fun things.
 
7:30 PM
One of the jars from yesterday is already sizzling a tiny bit. By tomorrow it should be read to go in the fridge, then be used in baking.
 

« first day (3555 days earlier)      last day (112 days later) »