New thoughts on the riots

[hndog609]

These acts of vandalism were far from random, and I think you meant "excusing" rather than "rationalizing".

I'm not sure I understand. Regardless of whatever pebble started the landslide it's my understanding you had a lot of pure thug acts of violence and vandalism. As for excuse vs rationalize they are often functionally synonyms.

broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

A window of opportunity presented itself when the police force surrendered its legitimacy for that period of time. Teenagers, blasted from birth by bourgeois messages, without access to Eton, with parents working graveyard shifts, and with adult "role models" like David Cameron whose wealth was generated by his great grandfather's war profits looting China and the distribution of opium....

Then what you have is a vignette which brilliantly captures the irrationality of bourgeois society.

As for the rest of it there are few things I think less of than a mindset that says "my life could/should be better so I feel justified in pi**ing on other people's". There are people dead dude, including a 68yr man that was beat to death.

 

[hndog609]

Well, let's look at it like the police then.

They've already been caught in a big lie. What happens when a key witness is caught in a big lie?

Not saying there may not have been a lie but would you please specifically cite it/them? There was a shooting and there was an officer sent to the hospital. Sounds like incorrect information...or at least the parts I'm aware of.

It said the IPCC's first statement made no reference to shots fired at police.
But it said: "However, having reviewed the information the IPCC received and gave out during the very early hours of the unfolding incident, before any documentation had been received, it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged, as this was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital.
"Any reference to an exchange of shots was not correct and did not feature in any of our formal statements, although an officer was taken to hospital after the incident."

Which line of questioning would you pursue if you were one of London's Finest?

Either they were incompetent beyond the pale (in which case they should be demoted off the gun carrying squad) or they tried to cover it up.


Has to be one scenario or the other.

Incompetence is certainly Occam's choice at the moment.

 

[punkcat]

The chick that was a college student and stole a flat screen was all caused by the evil white man.

 

[emainvol]

Why in the hell would a Vol fan not be a fan of Fulmer? And again, are you in disagreement with he first paragraph of the post? If so, what specifically?

Edit: To spell it out, no I don't wish Fulmer was still the coach, but he won a damn NC here, of course I'm a fan. Is that even a real question?

I am not a Phillip Filmer fan. **** him.

 

[tigervol9802]

utgibbs,

You certainly have a different take on the world. I am curious, in your flavor of ethics, are acts of injustice a valid reason to perform other acts of injustice? For example, do you condone the burning and looting of stores owned by Korean immigrants in LA back when the Rodney King incident occurred? It is the same type of thing, I think. Yes, it is absolutely true that in many cases the police behave badly and are not held accountable. However, does that make it acceptable for me to attack other civilians? rob them? vandalize them? Where do you draw the line?

You mention things that people's families did 100+ years ago. How far back in history can an injustice have occurred in order to be a legitimate reason to act unjustly now? Part of my family left Europe to escape religious persecution. Can I justify vandalizing catholic churches now? or synagogues, because, ya know, they are a religious body, too?

I am curious as to your take on these questions because I am failing to understand the ethical system behind your remarks.

Its called planned and allowable trolling.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

utgibbs,

You certainly have a different take on the world. I am curious, in your flavor of ethics, are acts of injustice a valid reason to perform other acts of injustice? For example, do you condone the burning and looting of stores owned by Korean immigrants in LA back when the Rodney King incident occurred? It is the same type of thing, I think. Yes, it is absolutely true that in many cases the police behave badly and are not held accountable. However, does that make it acceptable for me to attack other civilians? rob them? vandalize them? Where do you draw the line?

You mention things that people's families did 100+ years ago. How far back in history can an injustice have occurred in order to be a legitimate reason to act unjustly now? Part of my family left Europe to escape religious persecution. Can I justify vandalizing catholic churches now? or synagogues, because, ya know, they are a religious body, too?

I am curious as to your take on these questions because I am failing to understand the ethical system behind your remarks.

I think in the first instance you believe I am condoning the riots by the teenagers. Far from it - I have decried it as a vignette of bourgeois culture - kids with parents (parent) working shifts, force fed from birth a hyper-commercialized reality, enacting what they see adults on Wall Street / Canary Wharf / DC / Parliament do every day - loot and pillage but without breaking windows. I have said this is a tragic lack of social cohesion, but it is bourgeois society writ large.

The first night of "rioting" was instigated by the police, and it was justified political conflict based on what is now clearly an extreme case of state violence directed at a distinct population. The conflict did have "collateral damage" (I'm talking Night One), but it was the police station that was fire bombed.

When we deal with slavery / religious persecution of the past, the injustice lingers today. My take on this is a society should be endeavoring to rectify that injustice.

Now, if a society is working towards the least among us, then that injustice is being rectified as best it can in our own historic time. If Jaydeon has access to affordable health care, access to unalienated work with a living wage, freedom from persecution or simpy "special" state attention, and other dignities, then we are addressing those wrongs of the past as best as we can as a society.

If, on the other hand, we witness marginalized communites, the vacuuming of wealth into fewer and fewer hands (with good old fashioned white collar looting), communities who get stopped and searched by police 650x more than another neighboring community, an unarmed community routinely shot by police, a community without the same access to health care, living wages, etc, then we cannot say we are redressing as best we can those past indignities.

:hi:

 

[RespectTradition]

I think in the first instance you believe I am condoning the riots by the teenagers. Far from it - I have decried it as a vignette of bourgeois culture - kids with parents (parent) working shifts, force fed from birth a hyper-commercialized reality, enacting what they see adults on Wall Street / Canary Wharf / DC / Parliament do every day - loot and pillage but without breaking windows. I have said this is a tragic lack of social cohesion, but it is bourgeois society writ large.

The first night of "rioting" was instigated by the police, and it was justified political conflict based on what is now clearly an extreme case of state violence directed at a distinct population. The conflict did have "collateral damage" (I'm talking Night One), but it was the police station that was fire bombed.

When we deal with slavery / religious persecution of the past, the injustice lingers today. My take on this is a society should be endeavoring to rectify that injustice.

Now, if a society is working towards the least among us, then that injustice is being rectified as best it can in our own historic time. If Jaydeon has access to affordable health care, access to unalienated work with a living wage, freedom from persecution or simpy "special" state attention, and other dignities, then we are addressing those wrongs of the past as best as we can as a society.

If, on the other hand, we witness marginalized communites, the vacuuming of wealth into fewer and fewer hands (with good old fashioned white collar looting), communities who get stopped and searched by police 650x more than another neighboring community, an unarmed community routinely shot by police, a community without the same access to health care, living wages, etc, then we cannot say we are redressing as best we can those past indignities.

:hi:

What does bourgeois mean to you?

How far back do you address wrongs? Say Jimmy's ancestors are from north africa and Tommy's ancestors are from Sicily. Jimmy's peeps were Moors and invaded and conquered Sicily. Many were murdered, raped, and pillaged. For a long time, the conquerors ruled their subjects. Later they were beaten off. Jimmy's peeps moved to the Americas in the 1700s and were successful colonists. They acquired wealth and later a plantation. They bought slaves. The slaves were Jimmy's ancestors. So now, who owes what to whom? Which set of injustices were worse? Do you start at the oldest and work your way forward until all of them are redressed? Can we really be held accountable for what our ancestors did? Why? Is it fair to punish me for the actions of others? Why?

 

[utgibbs]

What does bourgeois mean to you?

How far back do you address wrongs? Say Jimmy's ancestors are from north africa and Tommy's ancestors are from Sicily. Jimmy's peeps were Moors and invaded and conquered Sicily. Many were murdered, raped, and pillaged. For a long time, the conquerors ruled their subjects. Later they were beaten off. Jimmy's peeps moved to the Americas in the 1700s and were successful colonists. They acquired wealth and later a plantation. They bought slaves. The slaves were Jimmy's ancestors. So now, who owes what to whom? Which set of injustices were worse? Do you start at the oldest and work your way forward until all of them are redressed? Can we really be held accountable for what our ancestors did? Why? Is it fair to punish me for the actions of others? Why?

Bourgeois is that state of mind which believes that economic rationality reigns supreme in human endeavors.

How far back do we go? It doesn't really matter. Society should be working for the least among us. Peyton cannot accrue honors at the expense of Jaydeon's health care - at least not in a just society.

I don't think it is having to "account" for what your ancestors did. It is merely thinking about justice, and what kind of just society you want. As I've said many times, I subscribe to Rawls, and find it amazing he was a 20th century thinker.

If we have a society working towards the Rawlsian ideal of justice, than the trespasses of the past are effectively moot. I say working towards so as to dismiss the predictable utopian criticism. I'm not sure where you get you would be "punished" in any of this, unless it is the common (bourgeois) refrain that you are allowed to accrue honors at the expense of Jaydeon's well-being.

 

[MG1968]

though he repeatedly denies it, gibbs is a Marxist. No one except a Marxist could have such contempt for capitalism. No one except a Marxist could find favor with Castro and Che, going so far as to deny that political opponents were murdered during the Cuban Revolution.

Gibbs is also a hypocrite. The very capitalist system he would deny to you and me is the same system that he has admittedly benefited from.

Gibbs is a coward for hiding behind pedantic language and using out of context quotes from various economic philosophers to bolster his arguments.

 

[VOLatile]

.

 

[RespectTradition]

Bourgeois is that state of mind which believes that economic rationality reigns supreme in human endeavors.

How far back do we go? It doesn't really matter. Society should be working for the least among us. Peyton cannot accrue honors at the expense of Jaydeon's health care - at least not in a just society.

I don't think it is having to "account" for what your ancestors did. It is merely thinking about justice, and what kind of just society you want. As I've said many times, I subscribe to Rawls, and find it amazing he was a 20th century thinker.

If we have a society working towards the Rawlsian ideal of justice, than the trespasses of the past are effectively moot. I say working towards so as to dismiss the predictable utopian criticism. I'm not sure where you get you would be "punished" in any of this, unless it is the common (bourgeois) refrain that you are allowed to accrue honors at the expense of Jaydeon's well-being.

If Bourgeois is 'economic rationality', then is non-Bourgeois 'economic irrationality'? Are you actually advocating being irrational?

I don't believe that economic rationality is the highest standard we can strive for. I put my faith, my family and my friends above my own economic well-being. I do believe, however, that if your goal is to help the maximum number of people take care of their wants and needs, then you must find a way to pay for it. The only way that has proven, time and time again, to consistently and sustainably help anyone other than the powerful elite to be successful is basic free market principles. Therefore acting according to a rational economic theory is the best way to help those at the bottom. Isn't it?

 

[RespectTradition]

Bourgeois is that state of mind which believes that economic rationality reigns supreme in human endeavors.

How far back do we go? It doesn't really matter. Society should be working for the least among us. Peyton cannot accrue honors at the expense of Jaydeon's health care - at least not in a just society.

I don't think it is having to "account" for what your ancestors did. It is merely thinking about justice, and what kind of just society you want. As I've said many times, I subscribe to Rawls, and find it amazing he was a 20th century thinker.

If we have a society working towards the Rawlsian ideal of justice, than the trespasses of the past are effectively moot. I say working towards so as to dismiss the predictable utopian criticism. I'm not sure where you get you would be "punished" in any of this, unless it is the common (bourgeois) refrain that you are allowed to accrue honors at the expense of Jaydeon's well-being.

BTW, Rawls was an idiot. His entire formulation of justice is based entirely upon subjective ideals. The very fact that he states "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position" shows that he 1) thinks everyone agrees (or should) what justice is and 2) confuses the concepts of fairness and justice.

1) You and I obviously disagree about what the reasonable principles of justice are. Therefore, to design a society as Rawls suggests, would mean that we would have to choose between your version of justice and mine. If one accepts his idea that justice is predicated upon fairness, then we are stuck discussing the definitions and applications of fairness. And I assure you, that we define fairness differently. Therefore, his application of justice to form an ideal society is an entirely subjective enterprise. Since nothing subjective can be tested, then it can never be considered a valid theory. Hence, his entire philosophy rests on his preferences rather than upon definable and testable assumptions. Any philosophy that is applicable in the real world must rest upon 'is' and not upon 'ought'.

2) Fairness as a principle is usually taken to mean that everyone is required to be held to the same rules. For example, no one would say that Buffalo is a vastly inferior opponent and therefore all of their touchdowns should count 10 points. Everyone sees this as unfair. Justice is the principle that we get what we have earned. Fairness would say that everyone who commits murder should receive the exact same punishment. Justice sees that some murders are committed in utter callousness while others have extenuating circumstances. He confuses both of these concepts with mercy and grace. Mercy is when one does not get something bad that one deserves. Grace is when one receives something good that one does not deserve. Mercy and grace are therefore entirely dependent upon one's concept of good and bad and are therefore subjective concepts. Again, he builds a house of cards rather than a reality based system of rational thought.

The whole idea of social justice is a farce. Justice is only applicable on an individual basis. Anything else leads to -isms. Basing justice upon societal groups leads to racism, sexism, etc.