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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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?
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?
And, bonus for us Euros:
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
*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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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?
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the marginal impact of post-mortem rudeness about a guy who was murdered by a lone wolf terrorist on future acts of terrorism is functionally, and in practice completely swamped by other effects arising from the act (e.g. I think the use of Kirk's assassination as a pretext for a crackdown is orders of magnitude more likely to produce further violence).
This would probably bear credibility wrt to Mangione, who attracted significant direct praise for his actions. The closest Robinson got was a lot of people saying "good riddance" about his victim. But in either case (as with lone wolf terrorism more general), you were looking at strong internal motives, not seeking adulation or other social factors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
And when the Blues use their domination of institutional power centers to so reduce you, what're you gonna do about it?
And when Blues do use political violence so, what're you gonna do about it?
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?
More options
Context Copy link
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.
...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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
I think there's a deep difference of gut-level instincts between the tribes here. Someone left-wing will quite naturally think that permitting Holocaust denialism would be much worse than permitting arbitrary thuggish looting and mayhem, because the former is the first stepping stone on a road that leads potentially to dictatorship and genocide, while the second (they perceive) is only ever going to be a marginal problem, not an existential threat to civilization.
Well, I don't know that they'd see the besieged courthouse as falling under the "rioting", or indeed, that I do. That seems to be a different matter. By "riots" I would refer to the random, apolitical, anarchic mayhem using the broad context of the protests as an excuse to run amok and pillage from random businesses. The arson, the theft, the intimidation and extortion of random homeowners. This was clearly not the motivation behind laying siege to the courthouse, which was obviously a targeted political act. Perhaps the tactic is too aggressive to fall under permissible civil protest, perhaps it tips over into revolutionary violence; but that's an issue of degree, not of kind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link