Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Monday, Jun 18 2012, 22:05)
AGAIN you didn't finish reading my post. I gave a second source after wikipedia, THE DICTIONARY
QUOTE
Dictionary "a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc."
Riots can be against anything and target anyone, if you feel the definition is different from civil disobedience, then so be it.
No, I did finish reading your post. I was just disputing that a violent uprising can be described as a "riot" unless it primarily targets citizens rather than a political administration. Semantics, yes, but no reason to get so up-tight about it. The dictionary quote proves absolutely nothing; it refers only to the origin of the protest, not to the target of any aggression caused by it. Do you not wonder why the civil unrest that characterised the Arab Spring was not catagorised by rioting? I feel you have to draw a distinction to avoid legitimising senseless and reasonless violence without a defined purpose. Case in point- the London riots last year. Those were acts of civil disobedience, and rioting, which were not political in their motivation. If you, as you seem to, catagorise all civil disobedience as rioting (which you appear to) then you insinuate there is no difference between senseless organised violence for its own sake, and those who use aggression to further a political agenda. And I'm sorry but that just isn't the case.
QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Monday, Jun 18 2012, 22:05)
QUOTE
I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of condoning looting along with legitimate, albeit violent, political activity.
But you would know about me if you read earlier "BUT Instead of taking it out on innocent people and their homes / bussinesses they should have focused their efforts on what they were fighting against, as is the case of the Arab Uprising did"
I don't disagree with that as a fundamental principal, nor have I. My issue is with describing "riots" as justifiable under any circumstances. If it is justifiable, it ceases to become a riot and becomes and act of political dissent. Otherwise, exactly where do you cast the distinction between the two? If you do not differentiate, then you essentially condone looting and violence against the innocent as if it has some political purpose, even when it does not.
Typhus, you seem to think there's some sort of equality between the racism shown by blacks towards whites and vice versa. There simply isn't, and it's impossible to put yourself in a black man's shoes to be able to see that.
In a sense you're right. Blacks are far more likely to be discriminated against when it comes to housing, employment or simply the ability to walk down the street unmolested. But I know racism when I see it and can call bullsh*t on the litany of excuses people come up with to defend it.
As I said, King is a negative symbol. Not a man who represented unity or optimism but rather a living reminder of both the brutality of the police and the willingness of certain people to loot and kill.
that is in no way king's fault, that is the officers' faults - he served as a reminder that the police force are racist, he was a a reminder of the racism and inequality that still exists in these modern times. Racism is a huge problem but you seem to think we should shove it under the carpet and forget about it, NO! it needs to end, and the aftermath of the beating (the riots) did actually go some small way to doing that. Those officers are the negative symbols not King!
Orange Grove Member Group: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2009
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jun 18 2012, 17:27)
I was just disputing that a violent uprising can be described as a "riot" unless it primarily targets citizens rather than a political administration.... I feel you have to draw a distinction to avoid legitimising senseless and reasonless violence without a defined purpose.
But just because you feel that the two should be called two different things doesn't make it so. A [different] dictionary defines it as "A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people". I understand that you feel that they are different, and at the heart of it the outcomes are different but the actions taken during it all falls under the 'riot' umbrella. Whether you run to save a person from getting hit by a car or run from the police you are still RUNNING. Good or bad intentions doesn't change it. Same goes for rioting.
QUOTE
If you, as you seem to, catagorise all civil disobedience as rioting (which you appear to) then you insinuate there is no difference between senseless organised violence for its own sake, and those who use aggression to further a political agenda. And I'm sorry but that just isn't the case.
I don't believe that's the case either, so please do not put words in my mouth. In fact, I've stated quite clearly that I'm not arguing that for that point. I'm simply using a word that is meant to be used for both situations. Getting a group of people together to cause chaos or destruction may be named the same thing "Rioting" but it doesn't make it all ok.
QUOTE
I don't disagree with that as a fundamental principal, nor have I. My issue is with describing "riots" as justifiable under any circumstances. If it is justifiable, it ceases to become a riot and becomes and act of political dissent. Otherwise, exactly where do you cast the distinction between the two? If you do not differentiate, then you essentially condone looting and violence against the innocent as if it has some political purpose, even when it does not.
I'm glad that you don't disagree with the fundamental principal but the rest is a complete fallacy. I'm not going to get roped into arguing this. You seem to be hung up on not liking the fact that a word can be used to describe a situation - whether it's positive and negative intent doesn't matter. That's an argument you need to take up with Webster.
I have to agee with NATESHAW - It's not Rodney King's fault that he was the victim of police brutality. It would be like blaming the Napalm Girl for getting bombed.
Honestly dont give a sh*t about Rodney King but people rioted because the cops that did it got off not because of the beating. Anyway we've seen similar cases here in Milwaukee with Frank Jude and a couple other cases. As a black guy i take it as a lesson. Most cops are worse than the "gang members" around here.
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
