My parents building had some grown floor windows smashed, and bottles thrown at the doors (the doors held). I'm not saying I WANT my parents' neighborhood looted, but it makes a bit more sense.... if you're having a revolution, go where the white people are.

That said, all the facebook excitement I'm seeing is ridiculous. "The looting and violence are necessary, and worth it if change happens!"

Moral problems aside... riots break out over these issues every few years in the States, and nothing's changed yet.

If there WERE to be a prolonged armed conflict that resulted in real change, well... the military is in the hands of Trump. Even if it wasn't, the military tends to be right-leaning. And of civilians, the heavily armed ones tend to be right-wing. Who exactly do my FB friends think is going to come out on top in an all-out revolution?! What kind of change is likely to happen.

Yeah, Stonewall was a riot but so was the Arab Spring. Riots got rid of the Shah, and brought in the Ayatollah.

Change is not always for the better.

For saying this, I was branded a racist who thinks that it's totally cool for cops to kill black people and privilege blah blah blah.

I think a lot of my friends are just privileged enough to not have to bear the brunt of any riots, but not so privileged that they got to travel and see what it can be like.

I think the wild card is the big city politicians are actively allowing/supporting the riots.

This is going to seriously demoralize police. Retention and recruiting of top notch people will be worse than it currently is. The irony is that to try and fill big city police ranks they will have to lower standards increasing the number of bad cops. A new sort of death spiral?

The forest fire is a pretty good analogy.

A complete fire destroys everything and takes a long to mostly recover.---- 30-50 years depending on the type of forest.

A partial fire destroys mostly the small and starting out - the under brush. Maybe a few almost dead big trees die. Most of the big trees survive and even come back stronger blocking out more of the light so it is even harder for new plants to start out.

Looting is shitty, but I'll not take lessons from Quillette, thanks, any more than I'll take 256-character lectures from Twitter scolds.

I insist that progressive intellectuals who make excuses for street violence, even in the face of the awful killing of George Floyd, are making a monumental moral and political error.

I don't know that I'm either progressive or intellectual, but I make no excuses for street violence in any case. But the professor has no standing to "insist" that I do a goddamn thing, whether it comes to street violence or my choice in the matter of Paper v. Plastic.

The premise of this blogpost is all wrong. It implies that the only way white people can get what they want (an end to these fucking riots) is to say that riots hurt minorities. How about these riots should stop because they hurt WHITE neighborhoods, livelihoods, and lives.

Why can't white people just demand what they want without using minorities as a proxy?

Everything I've seen tells me the hard core anarchists - the young people who sign up for Antifa - are not motivated by dare-to-dream utopian idealism, but furious nihilistic anger.

Let's not confuse the liberal/progressive parents with their harder, coarser, more intolerant children.

I see many of them as economically privileged, but emotionally damaged and alienated. I am sure many of them have lived on the bitter fruits of their parents' sexual revolution. It's often not hard to trace their anger at "The Man" back to particular humans...

I am sure that for not a few of them there is a death wish in the provocation.

At this point it is fairly obvious that the riots are political in nature and have nothing to do with Floyd and his death. The people throwing bricks and breaking open stores are mostly white and mostly bused in. The looters may be local criminals taking advantage of the situation but the people who break open the windows and doors are from out of state.

There are those saying the majority of protesters are not violent. That is true, but it also doesn't mean much. You have to police your own. You will always be judged based on the worst of your group. If you don't like that then the only advice I have for you is to grow up. That is life. At the end of the day protest groups have not done enough to end the violence perpetrated on their behalf. They are responsible for it.

I also see people still claiming 'Black lives matter' isn't a racist slogan. The usual excuse given is this is a shortened form of a much longer sentence. Well, those are some lovely mental gymnastics but they mean nothing. When you shorten a message it often changes what you are saying. A crude fellow thinks you are sexy and wants to fuck you. But that won't fit on his sign. So he shortened it to 'FUCK YOU'. Kinda changed the meaning there. So yes, black lives matter is racist. Lying about it doesn't help. It just makes it clear it is both racist and hypocritical.

"The looting and violence are necessary, and worth it if change happens!"

Except that's going to make change, actual real change nearly impossible.

Let's not confuse the liberal/progressive parents with their harder, coarser, more intolerant children.

Why not? the fruit rarely falls far from the tree.

Why can't white people just demand what they want without using minorities as a proxy?

They did. They were excoriated for publicly protesting without proper PPE and social distancing, and more than a few showing up armed. Tho I'm sure minorities also participated.

Notice how we've gone from "you wanna kill grandma" to "large, public gatherings are totally cool" at warp speed.

Concrete steps that should be taken.

1. End qualified immunity.
2. Curtail the power of police unions
And here’s the toughest one:
3. We probably need fewer laws, in general.

https://twitter.com/cjane87/status/1267898762845880321

Any law or rule suspended during Xi's Disease should be on the chopping block as non-essential.

End qualified immunity. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at June 4, 2020 7:08 AM

How many police officers do you think you'll be able to recruit if the officers can be personally sued for carrying out unpopular departmental or city policies?

So the way to end violence, brutality and racism is to loot, burn down and destroy minority business and residential areas while also beating random innocent people.

Can anyone spot the flaw in this approach?

Conan, which unpopular departmental or city policies are you referring to? I’m wondering how other first world countries like Germany and Great Britain get decent recruits. I’m sure you would agree there is room for improvement here in the states.

Ben, much of what you say is also applicable to the police, not just protesters. The majority are not violent. But it doesn’t mean much. They aren’t very good at policing their own.

I think it's laugh out loud hilarious people are trying to convince us that all the looting is to raise awareness!

"Oh, yeah! I'm stealing this 60-inch flat-screen from Target so I can raise awareness of police brutality!"

Can we cut the bullshit already?

Another argument I'm hearing is "Well, when we took a knee during the national anthem, we were criticized, oh, boo-hoo-hoo!"

Oh, my dear little delicate snowflakes, that is the nature of protesters: they have detractors. Protests are never universally accepted. If they were, there wouldn't need to be protests, because if anyone agrees, then whom would you protest to?

If you went to a protest and came home with a 60" flat panel television for which you did not pay a dime, you weren't protesting, you were looting.

If you went to the protest and came home with scorch marks from a badly-made Molotov cocktail that you hurled, you weren't protesting, you were rioting.

Please try to see the difference.

And stop saying Trump is calling the protestors "thugs" and "barbarians." He's referring to the rioters and looters with those comments. Trump's a tin-eared ass who well-deserves criticism for his handling of this situation, but make it legitimate criticism. We're already divided enough.

How many police officers do you think you'll be able to recruit if the officers can be personally sued for carrying out unpopular departmental or city policies?

How about a re-phrase? Legislate qualified immunity, not leave it up to judges to protect their buddies.

Ben, much of what you say is also applicable to the police, not just protesters. The majority are not violent. But it doesn’t mean much. They aren’t very good at policing their own.

Get rid of the union. When the thin blue line rallies around one of their own, it's almost always a poorly performing officer. The turkey who killed Floyd should have been bounced from the force a while back. But the union pushed back.

"...but it makes a bit more sense.... if you're having a revolution, go where the white people are.

Nicole, this time they are going where the white people are.

In the NYTimes: Beverly Hills, Buckhead, SoHo: The New Sites of Urban Unrest

Here the Seattle area, the thugs hit the Bellevue Square shopping center (and nearby stores), which is an upscale shopping area in the suburb of Bellevue.

Yeah, I know, my parents' building had its windows smashed and bottles hurled at the glass doors (doors didn't break).

I'm saying it makes more sense, if the riots are for revolutionary purposes.

Obviously I don't want my parents guillotined.

The asshole thugs hit very close to home. Not my current home, but the home where I grew up in St. Paul.

Lloyd's was a cool old (since 1918) pharmacy about five blocks from my home in the Midway neighborhood. Used to stop there all the time for snacks, and the occasional comic book, on the way home from junior high school.

After being looted and then destroyed by arsonists, Lloyd’s Pharmacy plans to rebuild

What puzzles me is why the thugs went out of the way to loot and burn it. Apparently the riot in St. Paul began at Snelling & University, the main intersection of the Midway neighborhood (so-called because it's midway between the two downtowns) because there's a Target there and, I think, a couple other big box stores. But Lloyd's is about 10 blocks north of that intersection on Snelling so I don't know why they decided to hit it (maybe all pharmacies are desirable targets for thugs?)

I'm saying it makes more sense, if the riots are for revolutionary purposes.

True, but going to wealthy neighborhoods and looting upscale shops also makes more sense if you're a run-of-the-mill thug who just wants to steal stuff.

I'm sure a revolution is the fantasy of the anarchists and Boogaloo movement and perhaps many in the antifa gang as well.

Obviously I don't want my parents guillotined.

Well, when the revolution comes, it's hard to say if they'll just be content to eat the rich. They may want to feast on the upper and middle classes as well.

They may want to feast on the upper and middle classes as well. ~ JD at June 4, 2020 10:25 AM

Revolutions feast indiscriminately and they always eat their own.

“I'm saying it makes more sense, if the riots are for revolutionary purposes.”

I don’t think most of these people could organize a bake sale, let alone a real revolution.

Revolutions feast indiscriminately and they always eat their own.

I'm not sure that's true. Did that happen during the American revolution? Did the revolutionaries in France send poor and working-class people to the guillotine?

Here's my feeling about Chauvin. My guess is that he's not a racist (although, of course, he could be) but, more likely, one of those cops who is a macho tough guy, enjoys the authority he has over people and detests it when that authority is challenged.

I think that when Floyd refused to get in the police car, it really pissed him off so he was going to show Floyd who the boss was. I'm also guessing that perhaps Chauvin had a reputation as a real hard-ass so that's the reason -- or one of the reasons -- why none of the other cops seriously challenged him about what he was doing.

Regardless of why he did what he did, it's still wrong and appalling that he did it. But I think the conclusion most of my fellow liberals (and probably almost all black people) seem to have -- that he must be a RACIST! -- is wrong (or not necessarily correct.)

I even saw one loony leftie, a black woman, claiming that "Chauvin finally got his wish, to kill a black man."

if the riots are for revolutionary purposes

Then you'd hit Guard armories and gun stores.

Even though all four officers have been charged, a conviction -- even for Chauvin -- is hardly a slam-dunk, as even Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has noted, warning that getting a conviction against police officers is difficult.

Recall that the Rodney King riots weren't a response to the video of the beating but to the acquittal of the officers. I'm not sure the acquittal of the other three officers in this case will result in a hyperviolent shitstorm but an acquittal of Chauvin absolutely would.

Yeah, but do many people know where the Guard armories are in town? That's for later in the revolution, when it's gotten a bit more organized.

> I'm not saying I WANT my parents'
> neighborhood looted

Nothing good could follow that proviso.

Much to admire from Kevin at June 3, 2020 11:34 PM. Immediately thereafter, Greg has a point as well.

> Why can't white people just
> demand what they want

Very nicely put, especially when "what they want" is mere comity. It's not a daring, revolutionary request.

> are not motivated by dare-to-dream
> utopian idealism, but furious
> nihilistic anger.

I think they want to be part of a big engine, but their only sources of identity are shitty cable news, ludicrous chat groups, and anyone-will-qualify social alliances. The churches, the schools, the more remunerative corporations and the more fulfilling social circles won't make room for them as they are. Anger's part of it, but it's mostly about wanting to be part of a larger movement. They've chosen badly, and they're invisible to better-connected alliances all around them.

> Please try to see the difference.

Conan is absolutely right, but as the righteous protests and abject violent appear in tandem, one might sensibly be suspicious. (There apparently was a Slate piece arguing that the violence was essential for progress, which presumably affirms that the author hadn't been beaten or looted yet.)

I'm not sure that's true. Did that happen during the American revolution? Did the revolutionaries in France send poor and working-class people to the guillotine? ~ JD at June 4, 2020 10:42 AM

It was Jacques Mallet du Pan, a royalist supporter during the French Revolution, who coined the phrase, "A l'exemple de Saturne, la révolution dévore ses enfants" ("Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.")

The American Revolution was an anomaly in the relative lack of bloodshed afterward. Possibly that was due to the fact that each state had a representative government and had been, until then, a separate colony. The American Revolution did not leave a power vacuum.

If those French peasants supported the nobility, they were punished, official and unofficially. The Terror, established in the wake of the Revolution, did not discriminate between classes. 40,000 French men and women were killed by the Terror and 300,000 were arrested. These numbers don't include the people killed by vigilantes and by unofficial means.

Ironically, the guillotine was envisioned as an egalitarian and humane means of execution. Prior to that, hanging was the means of executing commoners and beheading the means for nobles. In hanging, if the hanged's neck did not break, the victim suffered a slow strangulation - sometimes the hanging was rigged to ensure maximum humiliation for the hanged. In beheading, the executioner sometimes missed and the victim suffered until the headsman could swing his sword or axe again. Both means of execution were regarded by the Revolution as barbaric. The guillotine was adopted by the Revolution to replace both methods for rich and poor alike.

As for revolutions eating their own, just ask Robespierre, Trotsky, Rohm, Ghotbzadeh, and others.

The power vacuums in the wake of revolutions cause struggles as players in the new power structure maneuver to gain and consolidate power. True believers attempt to eliminate those whose lack of commitment might derail the Revolution, while more moderate revolutionaries seek to tamp down the true believers. That struggle often turns violent and even formerly high profile people find themselves targets of the revolution.

Revolutions do not just eat their high profile children. Every violent collectivist revolution that has gained the support of the poor by promising a workers paradise or to eliminate the social elite has turned into a hell-on-Earth, a totalitarian state with a frightening butcher's bill.

> That's for later in the
> revolution

Revolution is preposterous word choice for these events. I'll never believe that anyone using it now, whether black urban, white suburban, or pretentious commentariat has enough friends or social contacts of sufficient closeness to imagine that plans have been made for a better tomorrow, or that they know anyone on the committee for that eventuality. Any such people are kidding themselves.

This truth was made clear to me in a kind of personal way during the RKing riots of '92: Perhaps less destructive, having been a citywide rather than a national phenomenon... But I'll never forget the smoke from the fires, some miles away, billowing through my living room at dawn; or the rosy-cheeked wholesomeness of the well-armed national guard bivouacked at the Veterans Hospital ground fifty feet from my place... Made it all kind of poignant.

This is a RIOT, not a revolution.

Dear God: If this isn't a riot, what use is the word?

Well, damn. Wikipedia mentions the prior conviction this guy had, but deleted the previous statements that his autopsy revealed Fentanyl and methamphetamine in his bloodstream. Well, if true, that wouldn't support the murder charge for the cops, so it'd have to go.

It might not go like mad, entitled people want anyway. In court: "Officer, did you have any reason to suspect a man of Mr. Floyd's apparent age would have a heart condition?" "No." "Why were there four of you to handle one ordinary person?" "He was fighting." "Do people with heart conditions, in your experience, fight like that?"

Throw me down. Tell me how easy it is to hold me down. I'm almost 20 years older than poor Mr. Floyd, but I can make it tough for you, and if you've been lied to by everyone you stop for a few years, you're just not going to believe me if I claim anything at all.

Every cop, black or white, knows that if you severely injure or kill a black man your life is over.

That's why young black males have killed far more cops than the other way around.

You can kill a white man in the same manner and be acquitted.

A man in better condition would have survived the police action, however it is judged, with scrapes and bruises. The mindset of thousands, maybe millions, that they are entitled to destroy property and hurt others because THEY are victims, has not been changed.

"Ben, much of what you say is also applicable to the police, not just protesters." ~Abersouth

I don't disagree. I spoke out earlier about reducing or eliminating qualified immunity which is a large source of police corruption. But a key difference is the police aren't pushing for change. They are just guys working a job. Many quite incompetently, yes. Many corruptly. But that is a significant difference between the demonstrators and the police.

"How many police officers do you think you'll be able to recruit if the officers can be personally sued for carrying out unpopular departmental or city policies?" ~Conan

Perhaps police officers should refuse to enforce such policies. Many of them are illegal.

But lets be honest about all of this Conan. The current easily abused version of qualified immunity was created in the 1980s. We had police before then and had little difficulty staffing departments. Other nations don't have qualified immunity and still manage a police force. So the answer to your question is we will be able to recruit as many as needed. It is not a valid concern.

Honestly a bigger issue with retaining and recruiting is the disrespect and danger Democrat mayors have put officers in. Needing to deal with frivolous law suits is a much smaller concern than having your boss intentionally put you in harms way while at the same time denigrating you in the news.

"That's for later in the revolution, when it's gotten a bit more organized." ~NicoleK

The violent 'protesters' are already very organized. The have scouting groups setup. They have supply lines setup. If they wanted to attack police stations or national guard depots they would. They have no interest in that. The stores and houses they torch are not targets of opportunity. They are intentional targets.

"Even though all four officers have been charged, a conviction -- even for Chauvin -- is hardly a slam-dunk ..." ~JD

I suspect Keith Ellison increased the charges specifically to make it harder to get a conviction. I suspect he wants the anger and outrage an acquittal would cause. The local police and justice department have a history of corruption. And that blatantly fake coroner's report on Floyd did not go over well.

The American Revolution was an anomaly in the relative lack of bloodshed afterward.

Some Loyalists packed up and moved to Canada.

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

Jasanoff (2012) estimates that a total of 60,000 white settlers left the new United States. The majority of them—about 33,000—went to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, about 6,600 went to Quebec, and 2,000 to Prince Edward Island. About 5,000 white Loyalists went to Florida, bringing along their slaves who numbered about 6,500. About 13,000 went to Great Britain (along with 5,000 free blacks). The 60,000 white departures represented about 10% of the original Loyalist population.[2]. A recent study increases the estimate to the traditional figure of 100,000.[3]

Yeah, but do many people know where the Guard armories are in town?

Do they know how to use Google Maps? 1025 Broadway St NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413

That's for later in the revolution, when it's gotten a bit more organized.

Once the powers that be realize your intentions, they will empty the armories.

"I suspect Keith Ellison increased the charges specifically to make it harder to get a conviction. I suspect he wants the anger and outrage an acquittal would cause."

Interesting idea, Ben.

If he's acquitted, no "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" points are going to matter to people demanding a conviction. They are going to go absolutely apeshit crazy. It will make the post-acquittal Rodney King riots look like a kid's birthday party.

I often hear leftists say "violence never solves anything" and "war is not the answer." These are the same people defending the riots.

So, the police* cannot use moral violence to fight crime. Nations cannot wage war to end a holocaust. But leftist mobs can use violence to a political end?

* George Floyd was murdered. That was not moral violence. I do not want misquoted. However, the responsible officers will be prosecuted, as they should be.

Someone in the NYT comments posted a link to this story, about Dallas cops killing Tony Timpa back in 2016.

But Timpa was white, not black, so I don't think anyone was screaming "Say his name!" back then.

...so I don't think anyone was screaming "Say his name!" back then. ~ JD at June 4, 2020 1:10 PM

Nor was Minneapolis set ablaze over the killing of Justine Damond by Officer Mohamed Noor.

Radwaste: "Every cop, black or white, knows that if you severely injure or kill a black man your life is over."
_________________________________

And how many are truly stupid enough to think you're unlikely to kill someone after kneeling for eight minutes on that person's neck?

Not to mention that if you're tall and heavy, as Floyd was, those two facts can very often impede your breathing. On top of that, both very short and very tall men often have heart problems. But again, no cop should NEED to know those facts before kneeling on anyone's neck.

"suspect Keith Ellison increased the charges specifically to make it harder to get a conviction. I suspect he wants the anger and outrage an acquittal would cause."

Interesting idea, Ben.

If he's acquitted, no "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" points are going to matter to people demanding a conviction. They are going to go absolutely apeshit crazy. It will make the post-acquittal Rodney King riots look like a kid's birthday party"

If he had fentanyl in his system-and I suspect the tox report will show he did-they can never prove murder. Fentanyl depresses and even stop respiratory drive. The cops had no way to know he had a depressant in his system. I doubt he lives to see trial, as someone with common sense and enough power to make him suicide is going to realize 1) they can't prove murder and 2) we can't have the country burn after an acquittal. So die pre-trial he will.

"And how many are truly stupid enough to think you're unlikely to kill someone after kneeling for eight minutes on that person's neck?"

Well, obviously you missed this: you can be "too smart to be a cop".

When would you get up off a guy who's been fighting you?

I was talking with a friend on the phone earlier and we were both watching news coverage. Something came on about the cops possibly getting acquitted. I said the cities would burn and the jury killed... If I was on the jury there is no way I am finding him anything but guilty.

My friend asked what if he appeared in court alive?
me: might be a look-like.
friend: what if he would do the hokey-pokey with the jury out of the court room and into the street?
me: probably still stay with the guilty
friend: what if a more complete video was shown where some on yells cut and he gets up?
me:hmmm...
friend: and then complains about being payed less than the white actors
me: yeah...wait...might be a deep fake...
friend: seems like the cops don't have much of chance of fair trial.

Rad, I already read it, and you know very well my point was that it was murder.

After all, even the average teenager knows better than to kneel on someone's neck that long. In another words, to be a cop, your IQ can't be BELOW a certain level, either.

If he had fentanyl in his system-and I suspect the tox report will show he did.... ~ Momof4 at June 4, 2020 7:23 PM

It did.

"I doubt he lives to see trial, as someone with common sense and enough power to make him suicide is going to realize 1) they can't prove murder and 2) we can't have the country burn after an acquittal. So die pre-trial he will." ~Momof4

The whole goal is to make the cities burn. The idea is if there is enough unrest then the people will turn to the Democrats to save them from the angry mob. Personally I think that is a stupid idea. A lot of people have already noticed far left groups are running the riots. Instead of hurting Trump and congressional Republicans this instead looks like it will help them electorally. But that is why I suspect Ellison acted in bad faith when he raised the charges. The man isn't stupid. He knows he can't legitimately get a conviction on the earlier charges, much less the new ones. So raising them only acts as an excuse for increased violence when the charges inevitably fail to stick.

Remember it isn't locals looting and destroying like in the Rodney King riots. The majority of rioters appear to be from out of state (over 80% in some places). In no way is the violence accidental. It is clearly premeditated and intentional.

Step 2...
Reminds me of the Sam Harris cartoon:
Scientist at a chalkboard.
Top half: lots of equations.
Bottom half: lots of equations.
Between the two: "Then a miracle occurs".

Second scientist says, "I think you need to be more specific in step 2."

Karl, that was Sidney Harris, who is likely at least 30 years older than atheist Sam Harris. (Wikipedia only says that Sidney was born "sometime before World War II.")

Radwaste (I couldn't post this before, since this iPad kept crashing), if I were the size of Chauvin, I'd have felt pretty confident once Floyd was handcuffed - which he WAS, if you didn't know. If not, I'd have been carrying leg shackles to put on Floyd as well. But even if shackles weren't available, Chauvin could have forced Floyd to lie flat and Chauvin could have sat on his back.

Why does any adult need to have all that spelled out?

It's unconscionable to see the attorney general of Massachusetts, the top law-enforcement officer in her state, say, "Yes, America is burning, but that's how forests grow."

Bastiat already refuted that argument. The economic impact of rebuilding after an orgy of destruction does not provide greater employment and economic development than what would have happened without the orgy of destruction.