Vague and menacing threats are admittedly thuggish behavior, but I think it's hard to argue that it's more thuggish than burning down a police station.
I believe there’s a suitable MLK speech in which it explains property violence in response to human violence is an attempt to push the majority to action using loss of property when it is clear loss of life means nothing.
Given that it’s clear literal loss of life meant very little to people but property damage gets multiple multiple news coverage and POTUS coverage etc etc. it’s hard to consider burning down a police station when the police killed someone on camera to be completely improper. All attempts to appeal peacefully to the people who are supposed to deliver justice have failed, and in fact, those who are supposed to deliver justice have done the unjust thing...
I think I’d be upset that this happened, but I’d lie the blame on the feet of the original people in authority who decided not to investigate and bring into custody someone who had killed a man on camera while people were begging him for mercy.
The people in authority are responsible for maintaining a stable, peaceful society, where police don't kill people for no reason and hooligans don't run around smashing things. When the peace is broken, they can't push it off onto other people. They've failed, and the responsibility for that failure lies wholly with them.
I also agree that we can't blame the hooligans; I don't think the kind of person who burns down a police station has a sufficient moral compass to be blamed. But that doesn't diminish the need to urgently stop them.
I agree that there is a need to respond to the ongoing property damage. Unfortunately, the ongoing property damage is in response to an ongoing injustice- the person who killed a man is still walking free and has not been charged or arrested for killing someone pleading for their life on camera.
My understanding is that he still hasn't been brought into custody. In that case it makes attempting to stop the protests through authoritarian means instead of addressing the original problem makes it... rough.
This is not how legal jurisdictions and due process work. I'm not an expert, but if the suspect has fled to another state at this point, this is likely a federal matter that will need FBI involvement.
But, I'm glad you two came to an understanding. Gives me hope.
Well of course it isn't "more thuggish." The use of "thug" was done on purpose. It is a known racist dog whistle. Trump's racist followers know exactly what he means when he says "These THUGS are..." They replace that with the n word. It's just as a society we don't allow them to say the n word any more, so they've replaced it with a myriad of dog whistles.
What I'm saying is that, in their minds, every single person in that mob is a "thug," and everything they're doing is (in your words) "thuggish."
But the mob of white folks in Charlottesville? Nothing thuggish there. That's just white folks protesting against being oppressed by minorities.
I would call any group of people who burns down a police station, or breaks into a Target and starts stealing stuff, thuggish. The mob of white folks in Charlottesville did not, as far as I know, do these things.
I think this person is actually not a troll, just has some ideas that are maybe not fully thought through. I see evidence of an open mind by the poster elsewhere on the thread. Let's try to have patience with other people.
Yes. Yes I would. I wouldn't be surprised if that speech was written by a white person who doesn't understand the meaning behind it. I guarantee Obama fully understands how that term is an epithet.
So then he would have recanted when called out and the Whitehouse wouldn't have stood by the language - https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/04/29/obama-whit.... Either he thought the word was appropriate or wasn't able to control his staff writers and spokespeople.
I'd say he likely used it as an appeal to people who view things like this through a racial lens. He was trying to draw a line between most black people and those who would physically attack police officers.
You bring up an interesting point with Obama's usage of the word, and I would agree that he knew what he was doing when he used it. As does Trump.
When I think of thugs, I think of premeditated stick ups, protection money rackets, and intimidation.
A riot is dangerous, unpredictable, and unwise (imo), but I wouldn't characterize it as thuggish. It's clear to me the reason that word was used was to appeal to his base, who are eager to put a label on these protestors as a way of dehumanizing them.
FWIW, even in the most far-right audiences I know of, I don't recall a single instance of people taking issue with the "rioters'" reactions against the police force.
I see a focus on the looting and destruction of private property that is unaffiliated with the police: a Target and an Autozone in particular. If anything, I'm seeing broad support for what's happening with regard to the MLPD.
This is not a simple partisan issue. Not even close.
