site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34478 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 15, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And the police let them do it, because their local, state and federal government wanted them to do it, because Blue Tribe collectively wanted them to do it. You are failing to appreciate the nature of the problem; it is not that we have riots and murders, it is that we have half the country that sees riots and murders against people they don't like as a good thing, and they don't like the other half of the country.

And the police let them do it, because their local, state and federal government wanted them to do it, because Blue Tribe collectively wanted them to do it.

On the federal level, the one in charge at the time was a guy called Trump. I am not sure why he did not mobilize the national guard at that time, would have made a lot more sense IMO than mobilizing them now to help with ICE efforts in cities which voted against him. Of course the Dems would have tried to stop that, just to make him look bad.

On a local and state level, I think most Democrat officials were walking a fine line. Making Trump look bad was great. Making themselves look bad because their town got looted was bad, but making themselves look bad because the cops shot another black guy would also have been bad. In the end, some decided that letting people riot and murder each other was preferable to their town making national news because a cop shot a black person.

Cynically, I think if the rioters had decided to loot in the suburbs, the Dems would have been more likely to send the cops.

On the federal level, the one in charge at the time was a guy called Trump.

Whether Trump was meaningfully in charge of the executive branch during his first term is an open question, given the number of his theoretical subbordinates who have openly bragged about disobeying his orders, coordinating action with his opponents, and lying to him about it since.

I am not sure why he did not mobilize the national guard at that time, would have made a lot more sense IMO than mobilizing them now to help with ICE efforts in cities which voted against him. Of course the Dems would have tried to stop that, just to make him look bad.

My assessment, both at the time and with hindsight, is that Trump understood that cracking down on the rioters would be politically-advantageous to the rioters and their leadership. Deploying the national guard now appears to me to be a pre-emption against riots starting in Blue cities, preventing them from forking him in this way again.

On a local and state level, I think most Democrat officials were walking a fine line. Making Trump look bad was great. Making themselves look bad because their town got looted was bad, but making themselves look bad because the cops shot another black guy would also have been bad. In the end, some decided that letting people riot and murder each other was preferable to their town making national news because a cop shot a black person.

I am not willing to accept them walking such a line. Blue Tribe was operating off an understanding of police violence generated by deliberate, coordinated lies by their own knowledge-production cadre. They believed those lies because the lies flattered their bigotries, and they acted on them to compromise rule of law on a very large scale and in immediately threatening ways to anyone who isn't one of them. They did this in a way that, as incidental side effects, killed many thousands of Americans and destroyed their ability to meaningfully cooperate on basic law enforcement for the indefinite future. The fact that they had sufficient intra-tribal message control at the time to make all this plausibly deniable within the tribe doesn't change the picture from across the tribal divide. Reds were not fooled, and coordinated their own common knowledge accordingly.

Cynically, I think if the rioters had decided to loot in the suburbs, the Dems would have been more likely to send the cops.

Wasn't the place where the Rittenhouse affair took place a suburb?

It's urban under the UN definition (1,500 or more people per km2).

So does the quintessential suburb, Levittown, NY. But Kenosha actually doesn't -- it's 1,360.46/km^2 according to Wikipedia.

So does the quintessential suburb, Levittown, NY.

Well, I guess the UN definition is not necessarily dispositive.

Kenosha actually doesn't—it's 1,360.46/km2 according to Wikipedia.

The Census Bureau includes in its numbers the entirety of Kenosha's legal area, including an airport and some rural land to the west of the part where the actual people live. In contrast, the EU map that I linked works in 1 km × 1 km squares without regard for legal boundaries, and shows that the eastern part is denser.

I think Kenosha is more like an exurban place

Blue Tribe collectively wanted them to do it

No, Blue Tribe wanted there to be protests. Most people fell on a spectrum going from "sincerely believes that the reports of widespread violence are Republican lies" to "grants that some protests devolved into riots, but thinks it's more important for protests to remain untouchable than to stop the riotous excesses".

If the blue tribe only wanted protests and no riots, why did they cancel David Shor for tweeting “Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests increase Dem vote”?

As I said further down this thread, because they perceived the police as a dangerous bad-faith actor which would suppress the protests altogether (violent or otherwise) if given half a chance; therefore anything in public discourse which might give them an excuse to intervene, right or wrong, had to be silenced.

The disconnect with that thinking is that it’s far too optimistic about the inherent goodness of people. If police aren’t going to stop riots, how did these people think the riots were going to not happen? Larry Niven touches on this in his classic story Cloak of Anarchy.

No, Blue Tribe wanted there to be protests. Most people fell on a spectrum going from "sincerely believes that the reports of widespread violence are Republican lies" to "grants that some protests devolved into riots, but thinks it's more important for protests to remain untouchable than to stop the riotous excesses".

The spectrum very clearly continued on to "riots are good, actually" for a large plurality of Blue Tribe, and this was not an anomaly that started with Floyd's death. Consider the phrase "No Justice, No Peace", and where and how it has been used in American politics. Further, this was not a preference for riots in general, but specifically for their own riots.

In any case, you are correct that there is a spectrum. This spectrum is best encapsulated by the phrase "Blue Tribe collectively wanted them to do it". The evident sum of their desires was protracted rioting with as much of the cost as possible offloaded to their outgroup and as few consequences for their ingroup committing the violence as possible, and they were willing to break or ignore most laws to make it happen and to punish anyone who interfered. They demanded that their tribe be above the law in a way that directly threatened pretty much every member of the other tribe. They demonstrated that they were willing and able to enforce this preference in the long-term, regardless of the consequences. That is not a preference that allows for peaceful and prosperous coexistence, as I pointed out at some length at the time.

And they did all this based on a tribally-coordinated lie, and that lie killed thousands of additional black people and thousands of additional white people over the next few years.

but thinks it's more important for protests to remain untouchable than to stop the riotous excesses".

Indifference is insidious. Indifference to riots or thinking they're worth the tradeoffs is close enough for my tastes. Being unwilling to stop a bad thing or otherwise too high on your ideological supply to realize how easily it could backfire or otherwise go wrong is close enough.

The extra 6000ish black murders were really worth it, to the eyes of those unaffected by them but liked the aesthetics of protests and huffing that tire-burning smell, I'm sure.

Indifference is insidious.

Interesting. How shall we assess indifference to police brutality? Why is it that when people protest unambiguous police brutality and the police respond by refusing to do their job, it's the fault of the protestors for failing to lick the boot hard enough? Should we be worried that one of the central institutions for public order will mutiny if not granted impunity for their crimes?

  • -18

Seen from across the Atlantic, it seemed pretty egregious. At a time when people were being told to lock themselves indoors and cease all activity lest we all die horribly, an exception was carved out for one of the left's sacred cows. And a particularly unsympathetic one at that - blacks being escorted to violent riots by their leftist allies, because a black drug addict had died when a white policeman bungled his arrest and the left then invented an utterly fabricated narrative about tens of thousands of blacks being murdered every year. This is of course the uncharitable perspective on the matter - I'm sure blacks will see it differently, as will leftists.

But what lessons might the Right learn from this?

  • We live in an anarcho-tyranny in which rules are applied to you or not depending on who you are. Laws and institutions exist to oppress your outgroup.
  • Blacks are dissolute savages, and the problem with police brutality against them is that there isn't enough of it.
  • Leftists will invent several doomsday fairytales on the spot, on top of preexisting ones, and blast them simultaneously from every mouthpiece.
  • Lefitsts will also force prosocial and productive acitivty to a halt while promoting antisocial and destructive violence.

And, bonus for us Euros:

  • Blacks and their allies here will gladly adopt the American framing according to which blacks are owed reparations by society - even though they came here voluntarily instead of on slave ships! So we can be pretty sure that having blacks around is a bad idea in and of itself, because they will align with each other and their transatlantic handlers against the interests of the societies they inhabit.

And yes, this is the maximally conflict-seeking description. But with this in play, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the period of those riots was both very memorable and foundational for the current phase of the Culture Wars.

failing to lick the boot hard enough

You know, if you seemed like you were interested in a real conversation I'd be happy to both-sides the indifference problem, but this and your example seem like nice big flags that you're not. Let's try anyways-

Should we be worried that one of the central institutions for public order will mutiny if not granted impunity for their crimes?

I'm considerably more worried that the public order will mutiny if the police across the entire country are not universally perfect, since that's actually what happened. One bad cop treating one possibly-ODing drug addict badly means the necessary response is... billions of dollars in property damage across the country and a couple dozen extra murders? Damn, that's a heck of an exchange rate.

How many unarmed people do the police shoot, and how many do liberals think they shoot?

If you want to talk about red flags, lets talk about the insistent conflation of protests and riots being used to excuse the violent suppression of the former.

And let me be blunt: the consequences of bad policing in the US have eclipsed both the human and financial costs of anti-police rioting pretty much every single year, and that includes 2020, which included by far the most dramatic anti-police rioting in ~30 years (hell, the fact that we have anti-police riots in the US is a strong signal that there are serious problems with American policing). The reflexive deference to police authority, even when they are clearly abusing it, is both undignified and immoral. The fact that the police frequently mutiny if threatened with accountability is just straight up a threat to democracy. A riot is an ephemeral public order problem. An uncontrollable law enforcement apparatus is systemic governance problem.

One bad cop treating one possibly-ODing drug addict badly means the necessary response is... billions of dollars in property damage across the country and a couple dozen extra murders? Damn, that's a heck of an exchange rate.

Do you genuinely think that this arose from a singular incident? There's a steady drumbeat of cops murdering people*, but behind the murders is an parade of harassment, dishonesty, and casual brutality so pervasive that many don't even register it as abuse. It's just sort of taken as a given that the police might rough you up a bit if they feel like it, or they might lie about what happened to hide their misconduct.

And, importantly: extremely limited accountability. 'Paid administrative leave' became a punchline for a reason. There'd be a lot less resentment and hostility if brutal or reckless cops were consistently punished for transgressions, but overwhelmingly they are not.

*The unarmed aspect doesn't really matter much. As it must be understood that being unarmed does not mean it was a bad shoot, it must also be understood that being armed does not mean it was a good shoot. And the fact that it was legally a good shoot does not mean it actually was.

  • -10

We could, on a good day, probably have a nice and well-thought conversation on police reform, and I get the feeling that we'd agree on more than you might expect, though certainly not everything. Unfortunately for both of us, basically no one out in the real world wanted to have a well-thought and careful conversation; they all wanted to go insane or turn a blind eye to the insanity. So whatever I say here is less about police reform in general, and more about a particular form of racism and insanity that afflicts American culture and had an explosion in 2020.

the fact that we have anti-police riots in the US is a strong signal that there are serious problems with American policing

No, it's a strong signal that there is the perception of serious problems with American policing. The reality of the problems is, afaict, almost entirely disconnected from the perception and reactions to it.

Do you genuinely think that this arose from a singular incident?

Ehh... sort of? I think, clearly, bad police exist, but BLM and in particular the 2020 riots weren't really about bad police. BLM is about pie-in-the-sky pro-criminal advocacy, the about-face on bodycams being my primary evidence for this sentiment, and the 2020 riots were about people looking for a socially-sanctioned excuse to go out and get crazy on a spectrum between "block party" and "looting and revolution."

Video is powerful, everyone had cabin fever, and white-on-black crime makes American media go full stupid. If Chauvin had kneed Floyd in some camera-free back alley, it probably wouldn't have risen above local news. If Alexander Keung had been the primary cop instead of Chauvin, it probably wouldn't have risen above local news.

There'd be a lot less resentment and hostility if brutal or reckless cops were consistently punished for transgressions

I agree that they should be, but most of the resentment and hostility is downstream of other problems (ie, disparate impact and the confrontation clause). I think if cops policed themselves perfectly we'd still see much of the resentment and hostility.

The unarmed aspect doesn't really matter much.

I'm just commenting there on well-meaning liberals that have an aesthetic and moral privileging of certain populations based on race to being orders of magnitude wrong about reality.

Unfortunately for both of us, basically no one out in the real world wanted to have a well-thought and careful conversation

I disagree. Some people did and ditched Qualified Immunity. Colororado, New Mexico, Nevada comes to mind. But I agree that a lot of people went full stupid.

across the country and a couple dozen extra murders?

*Thousand.

There may have been only dozens of deaths directly connected to the riots, but the increase in the murder rate following the police withdrawal (which not only merely followed the riots, but was explicitly demanded by the protesters) accounted for thousands of lives lost.

Thousand.

I was trying to go with the "safe" answer, but yeah, I think there's a lot of merit to how much the rioting affected the murder rate. But Beej did post a recent update based on a Brookings analysis that the murder rate was already increasing in 2020 before The Happening, starting in early to mid March.

It would be helpful if at least half the high profile stories of brutality actually fit the bill before the mass protests and riots occur. How much of the 'indifference' that you detect is just a plain disagreement regarding what's being depicted?

It would be helpful if at least half the high profile stories of brutality actually fit the bill before the mass protests and riots occur

Structurally this is a hard ask, because one of the things that makes a story high profile is controversy, and things that are only debatably police misbehavior are more controversial than things that are blatant police misbehavior. And so the big name cases are George Floyd rather than Justine Damond.

Bending over backwards to make excuses for police murdering people and undermining efforts to hold them accountable is an extreme and hostile form of indifference (and it produces more crime). I used to be more charitably inclined, until 2020 made it abundantly clear that many right-wingers were not simply credulous of police excuses and actively supported police brutality as long as it was directed against their idea of someone who deserved it.

  • -18

I don't doubt your account of what you saw in terms of RW reactions, but I'm not sure youre modeling the general critique that I recall? To be clear, even I'M not conviced that what I saw wrt to Floyd and Chauvin was 'murder'. And that's the most high profile example of the issue you're alleging. Everything else from Mike Brown, to Jacob Blake, to Trayvon Martin - I am even less persuaded. In fact, seeing this narrative of police brutality extended even to Blake is what transitoned by skepticism to outright disbelief. Which isn’t to say it doesn't exist, but I'm not buying the package being sold.

The most clear-cut example of police brutality I witnessed was with Tyre Nichols. This came and went in the span of a week for reasons that are probably unsurprising to anybody here who looks into it or remembers the details. If we're trying to assess 'who is more caring/indifferent regarding police brutality', I will give everybody a fat Zero based on that. It seems we are only interested in this phenomenon as ammunition to hurt the other side.

I don't remember RWers condoning 'murder'. I remember them saying that many of those alleged victims led lives and expressed behavior that made their demises seem inevitable. Things like fighting the cops, not following commands, escalating hostilities, and generally living lives up to that point that reliably produce these outcomes.

You may still find that ugly, callous, or mistaken. Whatever it is, it's FAR away from dancing when a professional TALKER gets sniped in the throat.

Everything else from Mike Brown, to Jacob Blake, to Trayvon Martin

Martin wasn't killed by LE, so is irrelevant to this subject. Laquan McDonald, Freddie Gray, and Eric Garner immediately leap to mind as unambiguously unjustified police homicides which were widely excused on grounds that the victims were lowlife scum who wouldn't be missed. But the point here is not to trade anecdotes, it is to point out that there is a widespread attitude that is at best indifferent to and frequently outright celebratory of police brutality. Never mind dubious police shootings, the amount of times I've seen people cheer for law enforcement assaulting protestors is disturbing.

Obviously, justified and unjustified uses of force exist. The problem, which I am trying to get across, is that a lot of people subscribe to the Tango and Cash Theory of Criminal Justice. Their concept of what constitutes acceptable/justified use of force includes a great of deal of unambiguous police brutality, they tend to have a negative view of civil liberties, and they are willing to cut LE a ton of slack when they cross the already generous line as long as the victims fit into a category of acceptable targets. Attendantly, criticizing the conduct of law enforcement is often construed as being pro-crime.

The most clear-cut example of police brutality I witnessed was with Tyre Nichols. This came and went in the span of a week for reasons that are probably unsurprising to anybody here who looks into it or remembers the details.

I suspect what you're trying to hint at here is that the perpetrators were also black, but a) that didn't stop people from protesting b) you're understating the scope of the reaction. It's pretty clear that people who care about reducing police violence did care about it. It is somewhat plausible that people who would ordinarily defend cops to the hilt passed on the issue because they were black, although I think (a la Daniel Shaver) it is more likely because the incident was so clear cut and indefensible that there was nothing to argue about. If the cops pull a guy out of out of his car and throw him to the ground and rough him up a bit, T&C Theorists might say "well, he should've been more compliant and it's not a big deal if the cops knock a suspect around a bit anyway". CJRers say "that's appalling", and we're off to the races. If they pull him out of the car, throw him to the ground, and then beat him to death, there's nothing to argue about.

You may still find that ugly, callous, or mistaken. Whatever it is, it's FAR away from dancing when a professional TALKER gets sniped in the throat.

I don't actually think that it is. Excusing (and frequently endorsing) police brutality as a matter of regular practice because you have little regard for their victims' rights or welfare is significantly worse than dancing on a metaphorical grave. One is indecorous. The other contributes to perpetuating unjustified violence (and, it bears repeating, detracts from public safety).

I don't actually think that it is. Excusing (and frequently endorsing) police brutality as a matter of regular practice because you have little regard for their victims' rights or welfare is significantly worse than dancing on a metaphorical grave. One is indecorous. The other contributes to perpetuating unjustified violence (and, it bears repeating, detracts from public safety).

Am I reading you correctly, that you're implying celebrating an assassination of a nonviolent activist doesn't "[contribute] to perpetuating unjustified violence" or "[detract] from public safety"? Even in a causal sense, rather than a criminal responsibility sense?

Because, well, that seems obviously untrue, insofar as the elasticity of terrorist attacks with respect to celebration of terrorist attacks sure seems like it should be positive, and "shooting people for their political views" seems pretty damned unjustified outside a literal war.

More comments

The thing about holding people accountable you actually have to hold them accountable for the stuff they did, and not the stuff they didn't. Complaining that defending them when they perhaps did not do wrong is "undermining efforts to hold them accountable" is bad faith.

I’m sorry but that’s bullshit. There is the famous imagery of the CNN reporter stating fiery but peaceful with a building burning behind him.

It was a meme. People knew. Everyone knew. But CNN (mouthpiece of the establishment which is blue) was encouraging it.

This is a fair counter to the innocently-unaware angle, but not to the more layered second option I presented, where people were aware that there was violence happening, but thought it should be tolerated for the sake of the protests, because allowing the government to use the excuse of the riots to suppress the (purportedly historically important) protests themselves would be even worse.

If Blues "didn't want it to happen", but actively denied it was happening, attacked anyone that claimed it was happening regardless of their evidence, actively supported the people making it happen and refused to punish them, refused to take any action to stop it from happening, refused to allow anyone else to take any action to stop it from happening and fiercely attacked them if they tried anyway, and finally broadly celebrated it happening... The honest truth is that they wanted it to happen, but didn't want to accept responsibility for it happening.

Blues make accusations against Reds like this all the time, re: spree killings. We're unwilling to do what's needed to stop the killings, ie banning guns, so we want killings, or at minimum bear full responsibility for them. But we are willing to do lots of things to stop killings, from fortifying targets to literally shooting the would-be killers dead.

You tell me what Blues were willing to do, not say, but do, to stop the riots.

And the fact that we are still playing language games over this issue shows that nothing has changed, and no lessons have been learned. I cannot trust Blue Tribe to provide me equal protection under the law, because they have generated common knowledge that they absolutely will not do so. I understand that most Blues are unwilling to admit this, but the facts speak for themselves. Your arguments don't seem to dispute this fact in any substantive fashion, only to explain why they think it's a good thing. But I already know why they think it's a good thing: they believed, and many of them apparently still believe, that police kill two or three orders of magnitude more unarmed black people than they actually do, that ACAB, that we should abolish police and prisons, and that crime is either imaginary or caused entirely by insufficient leftist policy or not actually that big a deal or that the victims deserve it, as is maximally convenient for them in any given situation.

I am not willing to have my tribe reduced to second-class-citizen status, and I am not willing to allow Blues to use lawless political violence to suppress my views and political activity. If that is Blue Tribe's best offer, as it in fact seems to be, I and many Reds like me prefer war.

I am not willing to have my tribe reduced to second-class-citizen status

And when the Blues use their domination of institutional power centers to so reduce you, what're you gonna do about it?

I am not willing to allow Blues to use lawless political violence to suppress my views and political activity.

And when Blues do use political violence so, what're you gonna do about it?

If that is Blue Tribe's best offer, as it in fact seems to be, I and many Reds like me prefer war.

And after your so-called "war" — composed entirely of poorly-aimed, uncoordinated "lone wolf" attacks (because anything more effective would require levels of coordination of which the Red Tribe is incapable, and also to which the Red Tribe is utterly hostile (just spend time in Sarah Hoyt's comments section, or the Instapundit comments, about how anyone who so much as utters the words "organizing" or "joining" or "coordinating" is a "fed" and will be shot in the face, and that the only "strategy" is for each individual household to fort up to defend, all on their lonesome, when "they" Come For Our Guns™)) — is defeated, not by the military, but by ordinary civilian law enforcement (because that's all you need to handle such independent actors), what then?

Blues make accusations against Reds like this all the time, re: spree killings. We're unwilling to do what's needed to stop the killings, ie banning guns, so we want killings, or at minimum bear full responsibility for them

I think this is wrong too. The "Reds want killings" conclusion at any rate. Reds accept killings as a trade-off, because they care about other things more; just as the Blues accepted rioting as a trade-off, because they cared about their ability to protest more. Neither side actually "wants" the bad side-effects of the policies they pursue, not as ends unto themselves. Flattening cases of "wanted a policy which entailed negative side effects XYZ" into the much-worse-sounding "wanted XYZ" pollutes political discourse on both sides, and I hate it.

I think this is wrong too. The "Reds want killings" conclusion at any rate. Reds accept killings as a trade-off, because they care about other things more

...And yet, we are willing to take other actions, even costly ones, certainly effective ones, to deter people from becoming spree killers, and to stop spree killers from achieving their objectives. We are not willing to handle the problem the way Blues want it handled, but we are in fact willing to handle the problem.

I repeat: You tell me what Blues were willing to do, not say, but do, to stop the riots. Tell me what the analogous action to shooting would-be spree killers dead is for Blue Tribe with regard to riots.

Uniformed gangs on men with rifles took over a chunk of a city, declared it a no-go zone for the police, and began threatening and shooting at people. Blue Tribe not only stood back and let them do this for over a month, but when they actually murdered someone, they allowed them to retreat anonymously, made no effort to apprehend or even identify them, and did their best to memory-hole the whole incident. They did this collectively, as a tribe, systematically disabling all of our society's safety rails and lockouts in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening or punishing it when it happens anyway or even retaining memory that it had happened. I have no reason to believe they will not do it again.

Nor is this some principled stand. They did not mind aggressively prosecuting Rittenhouse or Baca or the boomer couple who didn't even fire a shot or any of the other reds who attempted to defend themselves, all the way back to Based Stick Man. No blue objected to Babbit, an unarmed woman, being shot dead on Jan 6th; suddenly rioting was very, very dangerous, actually. Antifa in Portland continue to routinely assault peaceful Reds, and the police continue to turn a blind eye. This is not a one-shot process, we have a decade's worth of data-points at minimum, and they all go the same way: our speech is violence, blue violence is speech.

Shouldn’t those people want the riots to stop even more?

Abstractly, yes. But so long as they believe cops are instruments of the would-be fascist blah blah blah, and absolutely cannot be trusted, then they cannot countenance the government actually doing anything to make the riots stop. (This is in many ways just a larger-scale version of the broader piece of BLM wisdom about how you should never ever call the cops on a situation involving a black person unless you want their death on your conscience - which is thought to apply even when wrongful actions genuinely have been committed.)

Isn’t this just another way of saying “blue tribe supports the riots because it thinks without the riots other what they view as good things won’t come to fruition?”

Maybe you think that’s unfair, but I really struggle to understand the above thinking as it’s divorced from reality.

Isn’t this just another way of saying “blue tribe supports the riots because it thinks without the riots other what they view as good things won’t come to fruition?”

Wouldn't you agree there is a meaningful, important difference between "supporting holocaust denialism" and "not wanting holocaust denialism to be censored by the government, because wrong and dumb as it is, suppressing it is the thin end of the wedge on the government choking out free political speech on a larger scale"? I think that is a good analogy for the mainstream Blue position on the riots. "Obviously looting and arson are wrong, but if we let the police seriously intervene, they'll use that as an opportunity to squash legitimate protests, too, so que sera sera." It seems worth distinguishing, on a moral and norms-maintenance level, from the accusation that Blue Tribe genuinely, actively wanted buildings to be burned and looted. Reluctant tolerance isn't support.

(Obviously this is reliant on a… biased… view of how institutionally untrustworthy cops are. But granting this factually-dubious belief, then it seems coherent to be leery of riots-suppression without properly "supporting" the riots. And in fairness, the validity of that leeriness is not necessarily reliant on the straightforwardly-wrong claims about how prevalent police killings are. Conceivably the police may be tempted to unfairly suppress legitimate BLM protests even in a world where the core claim of the BLM protests was wrong, precisely because it's all the more tempting to suppress your enemies' speech if you genuinely, sincerely believe them to be spreading damaging lies about you.)

Personally I do think there's some amount of illegal violence you just have to grudgingly tolerate, if you want a meaningful right to protest to exist in your country. Crowd control is notoriously hard, let alone in a grassroots, spontaneous movement. In the real world, "Sure, you can protest… but if even a hundred people nation-wide get violent, then we'll send in the troops and condemn the entire movement" is as good as a ban having large-scale protests at all. Now, I think the BLM riots clearly passed that threshold, at least in some states. But it's not a binary. Tolerating some amount of rioting makes sense to me, just on general principle - never mind that cops had plausible motivation to hold special ill will against BLM because their own interests were at stake.

I don’t think that argument coheres. There is just a step difference between permitting Holocaust denialism and permitting massive multibillion dollar mayhem.

One could make the argument about protest if there was maybe a car or two turned on fire. Still despicable but within the pale to say “but all of the peaceful protest is worth not shutting down the very small rioting.”

But when you get to night after night attempted to siege a federal courthouse it’s just too far removed from a concern about protest.

More comments

No, Blue Tribe wanted there to be protests.

This lost all its credibility once that CNN chyron about "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" went up against a background of Minneapolis burning.

See my reply to zeke here: by that point it became culpably negligent not to know the violence was happening, but I still think there is an important difference between supporting the protests despite the violence, and supporting the riots as violent riots.

Most people fell on a spectrum going from "sincerely believes that the reports of widespread violence are Republican lies" to "grants that some protests devolved into riots, but thinks it's more important for protests to remain untouchable than to stop the riotous excesses".

Those are merely descriptions of how these people supported the riot. Not doing the due diligence to figure out that widespread reports of violence are accurate is just figuring out how to construct (im)plausible deniability for why they're not actually supporting rioting. And even moreso for believing that riotous excesses are worth it for the protests. In the most literal, straightforward way, supporting protests while excusing the times they devolve to riots as understandable excesses is basically the central way for someone to support rioting.

In the most literal, straightforward way, supporting protests while excusing the times they devolve to riots as understandable excesses is basically the central way for someone to support rioting.

I wouldn't think so. There are certainly more radical, revolutionary types who actively support riots qua riots, violence and all, as the just deserts of white supremacy yada yada. This seems to be to be a very different ideological position from the belief that protests are very important and if the government's support of them is suspect, then it's better not to have them intervene at all than to risk their suppression. A moral stance of "I would rather (n) murderers walk free than have one innocent man behind bars" is not the same as support for murder.

This seems to be to be a very different ideological position from the belief that protests are very important and if the government's support of them is suspect, then it's better not to have them intervene at all than to risk their suppression. A moral stance of "I would rather (n) murderers walk free than have one innocent man behind bars" is not the same as support for murder.

That only works if you support actually investigating and prosecuting murderers and have credibly demonstrated that if the murderer is your friend murdering your enemy, you will stamp down on that murderer just as hard as the other way around. Blackstone's formula certainly can justify complete non-investigation of all murder - this will guarantee that no innocent man goes behind bars, at the cost of all murderers walking free. It's possible that these protests-turning-into-riots is a case where this applies; however, anyone who agrees with the protestors is obviously necessarily too hopelessly biased for making a reasonable judgment call on that, merely because they're human like the rest of us. This reality about bias is pretty much common knowledge, at least among the educated, and as such, anyone who's educated, supports these protestors, and trusts their own judgment that these protests are so important that it's worth letting riots happen so that legitimate protests don't get stamped down is someone who has figured out a way to support rioting without affecting their conscience.

it is that we have half the country that sees riots and murders against people they don't like as a good thing

This is an exaggeration. I'd say it's more like 5%, although they are very loud and influential, and that proportion is still way too high.

A significant portion of the gap between the 5% and the 50% is the remainder that isn't actively desiring of the riot and murder, but completely indifferent to rioting and murder so long as its happening in ways that don't affect them, primarily affect the outgroup, or are otherwise aesthetically pleasing.

No, it really is much closer to 50%. That’s the only way to explain the absolute deluge of support among leftists for Kirk’s murder. It’s a statistical argument. The only reason you’re hearing this many people who support it is because there are even more who don’t. Otherwise you’d have to believe that almost every person who supports Kirk murder has been vocal about it on the internet, which is implausible.

Bold of you to make a statistical argument without any statistics!

Like, I’m not expecting polling or studies. But how much support is a “deluge”? Why can’t 5% of a population generate such a “deluge,” if they’re motivated and/or influential? How many people are you counting when you say “leftists,” anyway?

I think you’re overlooking the selection bias. It’s very hard to make my case if I can’t even tell what you’re claiming.

I feel like people sometimes forget how big the US is. There are about 250 million adults in the US. Five percent of that is 12.5m. If five percent of them made a social media post disparaging Kirk, you'd have 625k Kirk-critical social media posts. You could grab the top one percent most provocative of those and have enough material to show case 15 such posts per day for a year with a solid amount of leftovers for a year-end marathon.

I accidentally happened to log onto facebook yesterday. Approximately half the posts I saw that were from real humans I know were being assholes about the murder - and this is after I aggressively unfollowed everyone who posted about politics when I last used the site a few years ago.

I'm not going to submit my aunt or my cousin to that CharliesMurders website, but I wonder how many people had similar experiences.

I'm not going to submit my aunt or my cousin to that CharliesMurders website

It's down anyway. Pretty sure it's been down now longer than it was up.

The Chinese Robbers fallacy strikes again.

I regularly use it as a teaching point for availability bias, and really need to remake the powerpoint animation for trying to scale the original metaphor in a presentation format.

The only reason you’re hearing this many people who support it is because there are even more who don’t. Otherwise you’d have to believe that almost every person who supports Kirk murder has been vocal about it on the internet, which is implausible.

I would absolutely believe there is an cultural vibe in which the far left feels much more confident going online and sharing their views widely than the equivalent on the far right would: why wouldn't they? They've almost never gotten meaningful consequences from doing so previously (contra the right self-censoring even fairly popular-by-the-numbers beliefs). I'd be willing to bet that the overlap there is pretty high but probably not every such person.

Otherwise you’d have to believe that almost every person who supports Kirk murder has been vocal about it on the internet, which is implausible.

What, is there a tweet saying "Shooting Charlie Kirk was good actually" with 10,000,000+ likes, or something? Because even if you've been reading pro-assassination tweets 8 hours a day for the past week, and you can read a tweet in two seconds, that'd still only be a little over 100,000 of them.

I was basing my guess on the rough proportions I saw in a thread elsewhere on the 'Net (i.e., no algorithmic sorting), with a fudge factor to account for lunatics tending to talk about politics on the 'Net more than non-lunatics.

EDIT: although I flubbed the maths, and with the same fudge factor but proper arithmetic I get 8%.

It's probably 50% of the 50%, so 25%, by my guess. Obviously exact numbers are impossible to get, and so I think anything more precise than that is probably foolish to speculate on. Certainly 1 in 10 seems implausibly low, given vast swathes of the country where it'd be at least 80% of the left support these acts of political violence and rioting.

That’s the only way to explain the absolute deluge of support among leftists for Kirk’s murder.

It's not the only way. The other way to explain it is selection effects. It's always selection effects.

There are 330 million people in the US. 5% would be 6.6 million people. Your statement implies you think 6.6 million people have supported Kirk’s murder online. I would love to see some data showing that many people have posted in support of his murder.

6.6 million is 2% of 330 million. 5% of 330 million is 16.5 million.

… we have half the country that sees riots and murders against people they don't like as a good thing, and they don't like the other half of the country.

Has this ever ‘not’ been a thing though? You can literally find this anywhere.

Has this ever ‘not’ been a thing though?

It was not a thing I perceived when I was an Obama voter in 2008.

The mid-2000s were, to be fair, a rather atypical period in the modern American political left of the last half century. Obama came in on the back of the anti-Iraq War protest movement, which was non-violent for multiple reasons of strategy, political co-option by the Democratic party, and the then-Democratic Party leaderships own relationships with left-coded political riots.

The US has a long history of violent political protests and actions. It is by no means exclusive to one side of the political isle or the other, and this is not a claim of the US political violence relative to any other state, but it's also not exactly distant or theoretical history either. Many of the recent and still contemporary political elites had formative experiences in the Vietnam Protests of the 60s and 70s, and while less massive there were major protest movements across the 80s as well. These were largely unassociated with the direct action political violence of the time, such as the Weather Underground, but there has long been a ven diagram overlap between the political-violence American left and the fringe-edges of the Democratic Party.

This included into the 1990s. Go back not even a decade before 2008, and the 1999 Seattle WTO protests aka The Battle of Seattle,, involved tens of thousands of anarchist/anti-capitalist-left-aligned protestors, militant anarchists and unionists, and typical not-entirely-peaceful protesting. Two battalions of national guard were called in, in a Democratic city of a Democratic Mayor under a Democratic Governor under a Democratic President.

This was not even a decade after the 1992 Rodney King riots, which were significant in their own right and had their interplay with the Clinton administration that began in 1993, and which served as a significant part of Bill Clinton's first campaign. Clinton threaded the needle politically, siding more against the law enforcement than for the violent protests, but the 90s were a formative period for the people who were violent protest footsoldiers then, and would become more, and then less, and then more influential again over the next few decades.

While the Rodney King riots were an element in Clinton's rise to power, it's better understood that Bill Clinton co-opted the effects than had major alignment with the radical left. Sister Souljah moments aside, the break developed with the Clinton administration's adoption of post-cold-war globalization/free trade-ism, and the conflict that brought with the traditional militant democrat constituencies. This culminated in the WTO protests towards the tail of the Clinton administration, which were functionally a base rebellion of the union/labor-left base. It was big, loud, embarrassing... and it was part of the background context for the break between the Clinton (and eventually Obama) wing of the Democratic party, of technocratic free-traders, from the traditional blue-collar base (whose protests were a political affront/challenge/nuisance to the Clinton administration).

These 1990s political violence set the stage for the 2000s non-violent Iraq War protests that fueled Obama's rise, because the Democratic Party's embrace/cooption of the anti-war movement turned that protest movement into an evolution/response to the 1990s violent protests.

This was in part because one of the major institutional efforts of the Democratic Party in the 2000s was the efforts to centralize control of all levels of the party influence infrastructure. This was in part a Clinton-wing specific effort to get Hillary Clinton set up for the 2008 election, but also a broader part / consequence of the Democratic Party's centralization of power in the party elites over time. (IE, what led to the visible age issues / lack of younger bench in the last few election cycles, as the centralized power brokers gathering power in the 90's and 2000's never retired.) This was a period where many of the more modern Democratic Party political alliances of the Clinton-Obama-Biden era were being formed and cemented to supplant the Blue Deal coalition, including high-visibility dynamics such as increasing globalism, media-party relationships, and the institutionalism of racial/demographic balancing preferences.

But it was also, going back to your awareness of left political violence during your coming of age period, the period where the Clinton-aligned establishment was co-opting the loosely left-aligned mass protest movement architecture.

The Clintons were notorious for their efforts to factionalize/control the Democratic Party machinery. The protestor-turnout aparatus is often informally a part of that- not necessarily showing on any organization chart- but it was a historical tool of influence for the American labor union movement, for whom turning out people to fight and vote were equal assets.

The uncontrolled protest wing was also a Clinton target / goal. After all, while helpful to getting Clinton elected, the more violent labor-left protestors were a personal afront to the later Clinton administration, which itself was when the Bill-Hillary relationship arguably transitioned to a more explicit quid-pro-quo of future political support for Hillary after she stayed by Bill during the Monika Lewinsky scandal. It wasn't just a challenge to Bill's interests, but Hillary's future ambitions. And the political consequences of unpopular political violence had been a factor in George Bush's election in 2000 on a law-and-order theme, and had been influential in decades prior given the Reagan Revolution. And, of course, the blue-collar versus white-collar split, of which the Democratic elite consensus was already firmly towards the technocratic white collar, and in opposition to the blue collars... who were, via the unions and the militant unionists, both part of the mass-turnout and political violence architecture.

So in the 2000s, deliberately or not, things like 'a willingness/propensity for political violence' was a filtering function for the Clinton/establishment wing during a Democratic Party internal realignment. Violent protests weren't just bad strategy for the anti-Iraq-War movement trying to win over American voters and emerging young voters, but they were an internal conflict point for the establishment-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party as it took over and coopted the Iraq War protest movement, which it would quickly euthanize after the 2008 election. Now, granted, that 2008 democratic party was won by a Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton- surprise upsets do happen- but Obama himself was also not part of, or appealing to, the politically-violent-prone parts of the left, and largely adopted (in)to the Clinton wing even as he seized and further centralized the party machinery around himself. Not surprising, since he was from the Chicago Illinois political machine. Also not surprising in terms of Obama not having any real ties to / relationships with the more militant fringe-wings, given those of the 90s were largely (west) coastal parts of the party geographically and politically far from Chicago.

Of course, Obama's rise was part of, and gave impetus/resourcing to, the progressive ideological evolution of the American left as it turned from the economic-leftism to the racial-leftism as the new deal coalition was abandoned in favor of the Obama-style permanent Democratic (demographic) majority thesis. The racial-alignment support demographics of that didn't pan out, but it was the ideological permutation that corresponded with cultural marxism vis-a-vis classical marxist phases, and the the evolution/growth of progressive-left political violence that grew aparent in the 2010s. Which included, yes, a deliberate return to mass protest organizing not only for responses to police shootings during the Obama years, a topic area he had strong opinions in. The more racial-left protests also led to / evolved into the mass protests as an anti-Trump tool in the later 2010s, ie. the fiery-but-mostly-peaceful protest era and its Fortifying Democracy party architecture of coordinating the people leading protests, the people leading the responses to protests, and the people covering protests.

Or, to put another way: a decade before 2008, the American political left was associated with mass violent protests. A decade after 2008, the American political left was again associated with mass violent protests. In 2008, someone just coming into politics could be forgiven for only associating the Democratic Party with peaceful protests, as the Democratic Party was in the later phase of ditching the older violent protestors and hadn't yet developed a new violent protestor cohort.

Obama was inaugurated in 2009. And Baltimore and Ferguson weighed heavily on the minds of people at the time.

I’d never heard of Ferguson till the 2014 riots. Was there something else associated with it?

you can't forget the "in the middle of a pandemic" part. For two months everyone had been told the most important thing to do was slow the spread of the virus. People sacrificed immensely in those two months to do so. And then, suddenly, no, the most important thing is for people to protest, and riot, and loot.

Fauci at least was consistent in saying they were a bad idea. I won't give him much, but I will give him that.

There's been a myth that there was not a rise in COVID afterwards that was pretty easily debunked by looking at city by city data - a lot of cities had spikes a few weeks after protests started. SpottedToad (may he RIP) had some great threads on it back in the day...

For two months everyone had been told the most important thing to do was slow the spread of the virus. People sacrificed immensely in those two months to do so. And then, suddenly, no, the most important thing is for people to protest, and riot, and loot.

As much as I sympathize with literalists getting annoyed with that, I also sympathize with officials who said that, because (I feel) "come on": You could not say anything was more important than fighting racism, anything at all, or else you'd be canceled, "of course." "Nothing is ever more important than fighting racism" just was...part of the "religion" of the time. You just have to say it, so you can continue doing your job rather than being removed (some might assume or even hope "most people" really know that and thus know to ignore it--see also Kolmogorov complicity, I know--like I said, I feel sorry for officials in that position). (I said so on the sub at the time.)

Suddenly gave me a visceral (not just intellectual) understanding of Jared Diamond's point (from Collapse; yeah I know, thinking anything good about him has become uncool; still) about societies that didn't do the obvious thing that would've saved them because it was against their religion or values. Because yeah...you could not say anything was more important than fighting racism, you just could not, "of course." To the point that (I suspect) some wouldn't even bother thinking much about how much good it might do to be able to discourage protests because "we just can't, of course" so no point upsetting ourselves thinking too much about how we should (or to put it another way, their "CrimeStop" would kick in). :facepalm:

Well, good to know, I guess, that when leftists get mad at people proposing hypotheticals like "would you say the n-word to prevent an asteroid from hitting the Earth and killing all life", they aren't mad because they think the hypothetical is contrived, they're mad because they legitimately deontologically believe that they should leave that particular trolley lever alone.

Hey, sacred values and taboo tradeoffs, it is what it is.

There's been a myth that there was not a rise in COVID afterwards that was pretty easily debunked by looking at city by city data

I recall seeing this once or twice in the wild from online-left types a while back, and it was tremendously funny to me, because if it were true that the mass protests didn’t cause a spike of covid cases, that would mean the lockdowns were totally pointless in the first place… which never seemed to be the point being made…

The really funny thing for me which I knew at the time was the clash of the scale of the things they were talking about.

Health officials stating that “police violence against black s” was our “most important health crisis” which somehow overrode COVID.

I knew at the time how many “unarmed” black men were killed by police; it was like 12 per year. 12 goddamn people in the entire United States. In a year. With a very generous definition of “unarmed” which includes; had a gun but dropped it, had a gun within arms reach, etc etc.

The average democrat voter thought it was around 10,000 a year, an exaggeration in the ballpark of 10,000%.

These same people were claiming that literally millions of people would possibly die if their despotic covid policies weren’t followed to the letter.

Even in their own exaggerated rhetoric I couldn’t make it make sense.

It was maybe my first experience with an absolutely unsteelman-able position which looked suspiciously like mass voodoo, like witnessing 90 million people fall to dancing mania in the year of our lord 2020.

Yeah but they’re experts.

This is somewhat tongue in cheek. One can be an expert in one area and not in another. But when one is claiming expertise and is that wrong, then it really calls into question all of their pronouncements.

I think that is quite an exaggeration. The riots ended up killing a few dozen people and destroying a few city blocks total across the entire country. That's really bad, but that's not what happens when "the police let them do it, because their local, state and federal government wanted them to do it, because Blue Tribe collectively wanted them to do it."

Outside of a few isolated incidents, the police did not let them do it.

To the extent that police did let them do it, not all of that can even be blamed on politics. Police often tend to be quite risk-averse when dealing with large crowds, both to protect themselves and to protect the crowds. They often follow careful procedures rather than just rushing in and meleeing with rioters as soon as they notice that violence or property damage is happening.

The fixation I’ve observed on this forum with the 2020 riots is certainly interesting.

Riots are not exactly an uncommon part of political life, yet judging from what I’ve read from many posters here these seem to have been the formative event for many right wing posters.

Interestingly I would have had no idea if not for occasionally browsing forums like this, and that it still seems to be the center of gravity toward which many conversations tend even now 5 years later confirms it.

Nybbler already pointed out that riots are pretty rare in the USA, so I am assuming that you are not American.

It wasn't the riots themselves, it was how the media -- not just the news media, but sports media, entertainment media, and social media too -- reacted. Everyone lost their minds. Those of us who had even a passing familiarity with the actual events got to see how the consent-manufacturing sausage was made.

the formative event for many right wing posters.

Long 2020 was a fascinating lesson in narrative development, enforcement, and the whole gamut of what well-meaning liberals will find ways to justify or otherwise turn a blind eye on.

And, once they've gotten it out of their system and no longer think it's good, the post-Long 2020 period has been a fascinating lesson in how quickly they forget.

Riots are not exactly an uncommon part of political life

In the US? They actually are. This isn't France. There have been riots, but nothing really of national interest since the Rodney King riots, and nothing as widespread since the civil rights riots.

The fixation I’ve observed on this forum with the 2020 riots is certainly interesting.

Riots are not exactly an uncommon part of political life, yet judging from what I’ve read from many posters here these seem to have been the formative event for many right wing posters.

My gym teacher in primary school was an alcoholic. All the kids would watch him show up for work obviously drunk, do the bare minimum required by the bureaucracy (check if all the kids are present), throw us a ball and tell us to play, and he'd lock himself in his office to drink some more.

He never did anything terribly bad because of it, but he did neglect his duties rather egregiously, and possibly the most frustrating thing about it was all the adults gaslighting all the kids about it. I told my parents, and they'd say "can't be, someone would have done something about it". We'd tell the teachers and they'd either change the subject, or go off on us for impugning our coach's integrity.

Anyway, some years passed, I went on to go to high-school and forget about the whole affair. I then ran into an old friend from that school, we catch up on what we've been up to, and then he tells me some news he heard recently - our old coach was fired, got caught red-handed by the principal. So I take these news to my parents and they say "why are you acting so shocked, you were telling us all these years that he was an alcoholic!".

Story unrelated.

Where were we? Ah, yes. Riots happen, you're absolutely right. There was nothing special about this riot, or the way the Blue Tribe, including half this forum (which included moderators) talked about it.

I believe speak plainly is a mandate of the forum. Maybe I'm obtuse but I don't get what you're going for here.

That sounds more like "stop having fun" than "speak plainly", but if what I said was so unclear, than just check professorgerm's response above, my point is nearly identical to his, though I'd go less for "forgetting" and more for "we have always been at war with EastAsia".

To be fair, I also rated your post as "bad" by the standards of the rules, for the exact reason of it not being plain-spoken.

That said, it's not a serious problem, and besides you're right on the actual subject.

A fair amount of the "police let them do it" can be blamed on the police preferring to attack people protesting police brutality over maintaining public order. Which, you know, kind of vindicates the people protesting police brutality.

  • -13

destroying a few city blocks total across the entire country

If you're counting entire blocks. If you're counting individual stores, it would be much, much higher, and much more distributed.

Remind me why cities thousands of miles away from Minneapolis needed to have riots, why they needed to have minority-owned shops destroyed, and why the riots are worth it to you to minimize and downplay?

More than a few blocks were destroyed in Kenosha alone. This is just retconning recent history. There was billions in damage.

Source

And that number only counts insurance payouts. There were certainly places that were not insured or were underinsured.

Specify 'a few.'

In some contexts, 'a few' is three. In other contexts, three thousand might be 'a few' due to the scale. 'A few' is as specific as 'a bit', which doesn't have to mean 'one.' The Ferguson Effect was long downplayed for having only being 'a bit' of an impact, even as later research claims argue that homicides during a follow-on period raised one-zero percent (10%) as opposed to one percent (1%). That's an order of magnitude difference than might be implied by a figure of speech.

This is before duration-over-time is applied to metrics. Consider the Seattle CHOP autonomous zone, which lasted nearly a month as a de-facto secessionist zone of no law enforcement at the city's tolerance before being quickly and quietly rolled up after an unambiguous murder. Does that count as one protest, or over two dozen?

I stand by my description.

Masked and uniformed men with rifles took over several blocks of a major American city, and began threatening and shooting at anyone that displeased them. The police let them do it. Local officials described it as a street festival. After their several attempted murders escallated to an actual murder, the police allowed them to flee unmolested, making no apparent effort to detain or even identify those involved.

I think that fits the description "let them do it".

Hundreds of easily-predictable and highly destructive riots were allowed to proceed without police intervention, or with the police only moving in to close things down after the rioters had their fun. Rioters were allowed to burn a police precinct. Rioters were allowed to besiege a federal courthouse. Rioters rampaging through suburbs were at one point confronted by a homeowner armed with a shotgun; the police arrested the homeowner. Numerous cases of legitimate armed self-defense on the part of citizens were maliciously prosecuted by the authorities, resulting in long prison terms and at least one death by suicide. Numerous cases of highly-illegal and entirely unjustified "self-defense" on the part of the rioters were quietly cleaned up with minimal or no charges.

In the overwhelming majority of these cases, nothing has ever been done to address or rectify the problem.

Nor was this limited to the Floyd riots. Police stand-downs have been commonplace and easily observable at least as far back as the battle of Berkeley, the better to allow Leftist thugs to brutalize those who dissent. My understanding is that this is still happening in Blue strongholds; the thugs wear masks and work in teams, the police decline to intervene, and then shrug at the victims who have no actual culprit to point to. Locals approve, because to them, the thugs are the "good guys".

Here, have some video from a while back, via these guys. Clearly it is only due to their mastery of the criminal arts that these people manage to evade apprehension.

To the extent that police did let them do it, not all of that can even be blamed on politics. Police often tend to be quite risk-averse when dealing with large crowds, both to protect themselves and to protect the crowds. They often follow careful procedures rather than just rushing in and meleeing with rioters as soon as they notice that violence or property damage is happening.

When you have had riots the two previous nights, and you know there is going to be another riot tonight, and you accept this as a fact of the universe to be managed and worked around rather than attempting to prevent the riot before it starts, that is what letting it happen looks like.

Yeah the issue with police stand downs isn't the physical damage, it is the psychological damage. This might sound hyperbolic but it is unfortunately accurate - it works the same way terrorism works, utilising the spectacle of violence to achieve a political or ideological aim by manipulating the emotional state of a much larger audience. It creates deep insecurity and distrust in the general public on top of a general sense of unease and danger.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats