[leereeves]

Violence wasn't limited to a handful of anarchists during the inauguration.

There have been numerous incidents of assault, arson, vandalism, looting, and such during protests for at least a couple years now, starting with BLM protests long before Trump and the election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest

Some prominent activists have even defended these acts. For example, Deeray McKesson called In Defense of Looting "absolute required reading".

https://twitter.com/deray/status/524704650218729473

[troncheadle]

Just... so much wrong here. First and foremost, you are still characterizing an entire movement by it's worst actors, so the point of the poster above you stands.

Second -- 'Ferguson' was a community reacting to a state sponsored murder -- not a 'BLM protest'. They weren't out there for BLM, they were out there because Ferguson cops enacted violence on their community.

Finally, calling 'in defense of looting' required reading is not endorsing or defending looting. You aren't a Nazi because you read Mein Kampf. It's an interesting take and I'm sure Deray has a nuanced opinion on the issue -- but nah you're just going to keep mischaracterizing people and movements to fit your world view.

[leereeves]

First, while I don't want to argue the case of the shooting of Michael Brown here (nor do I have any special knowledge to add to the publicly available facts), you've jumped to conclusions regarding the case ("a state sponsored murder").

The grand jury did not find enough evidence to charge the officer and even CNN said "Some [witnesses] admitted lying. Others changed their stories under questioning."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-cre...

You've clearly decided the facts of the case based not on evidence but on your own world view so kindly spare me spurious accusations of doing so.

Second, I'm not characterizing an entire movement, I'm merely referencing the events.

I'm not merely referring to Ferguson, that's simply one example of many, so I used a general term. You may prefer other terms but I suspect that you know what I'm referring to when I use the term "BLM protests".

Third, while Mein Kampf may be required reading for its historical importance, do tell, why would In Defense of Looting be required reading if not for the position it advocates?

...

So this is being downvoted without response - why?

[iak8god]

Hi. I just went off and read In Defense of Looting[1], which I'd never seen before, following its mention in your earlier post. It's fascinating. I think you should read it. It presents a very interesting perspective that many might not be familiar with and, despite the title, is not primarily a defense of looting.

Isn't this an interesting idea worth thinking about? "Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state."

I don't think looting is a good idea, but I do think reading that essay is. Possibly Deeray McKesson felt the same way.

[1] http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/in-defense-of-looting/

[leereeves]

I've read it a few times.

"It is in solidarity with these latter protesters–along with those who loot–and against politicians and de-escalators everywhere that I offer this critique"

As someone who would like to see de-escalation before this all ends in civil war, the author has declared (correctly, I think) themselves against me.

It is, more than a mere defense of looting, an attack on capitalism and "white supremacy" (by which the author means American society in general, not extremist Neo-Nazis).

I'm as aware as anyone of the failures and injustices of capitalism, but merely taking what one wants isn't a sustainable solution.

[iak8god]

> It is, more than a mere defense of looting, an attack on capitalism and "white supremacy" (by which the author means American society in general, not extremist Neo-Nazis).

Right. Those are some of the reasons it's plausible that someone would recommend it with a more complex intention than "yay, looting."

[leereeves]

I'm sure countless sources could be found that present those arguments without also defending looting.

Perhaps one could even find sources that present a fair criticism of the flaws of other economic systems and the injustices perpetrated by other societies alongside the critique of capitalism and American history.

When a prominent activist like DeRay Mckesson recommends an article like In Defense of Looting, it's likely to encourage looting by some of his followers.

[JohnTHaller]

Really had to move the goal posts from my specific example there, didn't you?

[leereeves]

You tried to move the goalposts where you wanted them; I moved the conversation back to the overall topic.

The comment you replied to didn't mention anything about the inauguration, the Women's March, Trump, or the election.

[JohnTHaller]

I spoke to the specific event I personally attended (the Women's March) that has been called violent by many Trump supporters.

[leereeves]

> The peaceful gatherings with signs and petitions, or the kind with assaults, battery, looting and vandalism on others for speaking their side?

I'd say the Women's March was the first kind, and, for example, the recent Berkeley-Milo protest was the second.

And I think the question in the quote is appropriate. Surely we don't intend the First Amendment to protect people the UC Chancellor reportedly described as: "more than 100 armed people in masks and dark uniforms who used paramilitary tactics to engage in violent destructive behavior intended to shut the event down."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opinion/violence-at-be...