(08-03-2020 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I think there are a number of misunderstandings between us - see bolded above and responses below.
1) The quoted text was me saying that Portland police were "actively engaging rioters using force before the Feds arrived" not that peaceful protesters were trying to stop the rioters. When you said "had the locals" I didn't realize you meant the protestors - you're right that my conversations with Tanq had made this a bit confusing, as I took "locals" to mean local officials, not protesters (it's rather ambiguous and a good example of the difficulties of this message board).
Someone mentioned it in your mod post that one of the issues we've been having is assuming people are coming from a negative place in their response, and this is a good example. I misunderstood what you said because it wasn't clear what "locals" referred to, so I'm sorry for the confusion, but it was honest and not rude.
Yes, but the question is, why? How do I keep you from reading something into my post that isn't there... And more significantly, why we then spend so much time talking about something I never said.
The entire theme of my post was about the responsibility of citizens... how their reaction to 'policing' and 'the rule of law' impacted outcomes. Since I was responding to a post praising how the people acted in this instance, this is directly on point. I don't think I discussed the Portland police at all.
So why are you reading that into my statements?
I suspect, though I obviously don't know... that it comes from you either 'responding as you read' which means you're assuming where I'm going... or as I suggested, 'assuming that I share someone else's perspective/point and assigning that to me'... or perhaps that we, as a group, somehow get together and share notes.
Maybe the simple answer (and I'd say this to all of us including me) is to read a post in its entirety first... and try and do so, only thinking about what THAT person has said... before responding. And that responding
as you go often means you're not doing that.
Quote:2) I'm not ignoring what you said, I'm pointing out why I don't believe what I said was inconsistent. I agree that had protesters been able to internally manage rioters, the Feds never show up.
My initial comment was not focused on how good people stop bad people from doing bad things, and I've been explicit about what my point was about the actions of others being a silver lining.
I guess I see it completely differently. I see what they did here as the expectation in a civil society and not something to be lauded. I see what they did in the initial response to be 'aiding and abetting'.... perhaps not in the legal sense, but I think you know what I mean. You notice the difference in the response by law enforcement, and ignore the difference in the actions that portend those different responses.
I have made it very clear that I don't expect protesters to internally manage rioters. More on this later.
I haven't read the details of this situation, but you described the guy they detained as being 'on the other side' or something like that, which suggests to me that he was a counter-protestor who wasn't supportive of the goals of the protestors... which to me only means that they stopped and helped arrest him because they don't support his goals... which somewhat implies that the reason thet stopped him, but didn't stop the initial rioters nor help arrest them is because although they MAY not support their methods, they DO support their goals. While I'm thankful that these people didn't engage in criminal activity and actually assault this guy, that's my expectation.
I don't know if that's the case here for certain, but that would certainly explain the 'different' reaction. Another possibility is that the people learned that 'failing to support law enforcement' means that law enforcement may come in with a hammer... Or just that the large roving bands of trouble makers who rile up local citizens and loot and riot every time there is a planned protest left and these are the people who remain. Either way, these people should have been HAPPY to call out those who were violent and not part of their community.
The fact that some are pointing out that one rioter was apparently a Hell's Angel guy only demonstrates exactly what I mean. How are we able to identify THAT guy, but not the others?
Quote:3) You're assigning a position to me that I haven't taken. Are the rioters to blame for rioting? Yes. Are the Feds to blame to an increase in rioting? Yes. This isn't a binary choice where only one group can be blamed, and just because I have primarily focused my criticism on the response from the Feds doesn't mean others are without blame or fault.
Similar to my comment above, this is an issue with the difficulties of a message board - instead of assuming I hold people without blame, ask me whether or not I do. I'll try and do the same here (even if some posters get piqued when I ask clarifying questions...)
I simply wanted to point out to OO that his initial link about "Violence at protests" actually provided numerous examples of the opposite occurring.
What difference does your response make though? What point are you trying to make? Does something have to happen 100% of the time in order for it to be wrong when it happens? If in response to the killing of George Floyd, I showed you thousands of times when police 'did it right', does that change anything about what was done to him? Has anyone suggested that we should eliminate our right to peacefully protest in response to violent protests?
The only belief I've assigned to you, you've agreed exists. You've only now admitted that the actions of the feds are clearly in response to the actions of the people... but you still seem to place the blame on the feds.
I don't expect protesters to internally manage rioters. This is what I mean when I speak of arguing in the absurd. You've set the bar at 'mob rule'. I expect peaceful protesters to assist law enforcement... especially those acting in a purely defensive manner, meaning they aren't out there shooting the guys with fireworks so that we know who they are in the aftermath... and willingly 'out' violent ones to law enforcement. I expect them to seek out law enforcement to tell them what they witnessed... to tell them if they know any of them. I honestly would expect a few peaceful protestors to be waiting outside law enforcement's door to tell them what they witnessed... to show the same disdain for unlawful acts of citizens who don't wear a badge as to those who do.
Mostly, I expect them to be smart enough to know that if it is being suggested that everyone wear black and masks, that SOME people intend to break laws and don't want to get caught... and by wearing a mask with them, you're at least potentially providing them cover.
And I don't assume that you hold people without blame. I simply witness that you seem to spend a lot of time focusing on the clear responders and almost no time on the clear instigators, other than to demonstrate times when they didn't instigate. Yes... those who provide them cover are not 'innocent'. They may not be legally culpable... and failing to report what you know may not be a crime... but they are not doing their public duty to help keep the peace.
I find it ironic that people, some of whom literally want to eliminate the police and replace them with 'mob rule' ignore how clearly biased these mobs can be. They're simultaneously arguing against bias while demonstrating that 'some' bias is okay.
/
Violence at protests
