The main issue I have is the elites are completely isolated and are not feeling the impact of any of this. Like go after some country clubs - start making them feel uncomfortable.
Do you agree with burning it down?
0 voters
The wealthy will order the police to use live ammunition if it gets anywhere near them
Yeah, but “burn it down” and “burn country clubs” not the same thing.
I can’t tell what you’re saying. What do you mean by “burn it down”?
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson wrote this about Shays’ Rebellion, in support of replacing the Articles of Confederation with a new constitution.
Our Constitution is broken and needs replacing. If the current protests can be a vehicle for regime change and greater justice, then what’s the big deal about a little blood in the long run?
The big deal is that: (1) your conditional is nowhere near a lock or even a good bet (2) “a little blood” is a repugnant framing of people dying in the streets (3) no more deontology for you, huh?
If regime change is needed, is there a better bet? I’m not sure if there are any good options. Sometimes, you just have to play the hand you are dealt. If you find my framing repugnant, that may be intentional. I’m not quite sure if I am a deontologist, but I am sure I am not a utilitarian. That being said, a deontologist doesn’t have to have “no killing” as a rule.
Well is it? Why do you talk out of the side of your mouth so often?
Why not? You seem to like cost-benefit analysis. Your post is textbook utilitarian thinking.
I see the world in probabilistic terms. I have the tendency to use worlds like “may” or “might” or “probably” where other people express things with more certainty. This is just the way I talk.
I am being intentionally cavalier about loss of life to signal that I don’t think I have a duty to avoid all killing.
While I am not sure if I am a deontologist, I am at least sympathetic to that viewpoint. From my perspective, a deontological outlook constrains the range of permissible actions with rules and duties. There is still freedom of action and a cost-benefit analysis is a way of making decisions between the lines.
Your posting style tilts the crap out of me so I’m going to move on. It probably says more about me than you.
If 20% unemployment wasn’t bad enough.
Let’s take it to 40% unemployment after we burn it all down. Surely things will be a lot better for society at those levels.
Things will get better if we can harm the 1%. We just have to go through a lot of other people to get to them.
How many guns do you own?
I’m more of a poison and explosives kind of guy.
I’d take it a step further and show up to banks, corporate headquarters, and the houses of the top 1%. This isn’t an I told you so, but I did warn just how bad civil unrest could get and was laughed at by ignorant pacifists. If you think what’s going on now is bad, it’s not hard to imagine that with just a couple more things going wrong things could ignite into something a whole hell of a lot worse.
The problem is, downtrodden Trump supporters, racist though they may be, and the poor minority class don’t realize they should be on the same team. It’s everyone against the establishment and I’m all for burn it all down. I said in another thread the establishment has done a brilliant job of pitting everyone against each other while they go on continuing with their grift. Even the left is divided against the left. This is not a democracy anymore, but an oligarchy and through the use of identity politics they’ve set it up over the last several decades so that anger is directed everywhere except where it should be
No, it doesn’t.
You’re wrong to call it stupid.
There’s an argument that as it’s election year with some chance of getting rid of him in a few months it might be best to call a halt to the rioting for now, and resume when the next black person is killed on video shortly after his re-election if that happens, or when he cons his way from a loss to a win or suspends the election or whatever.
I’m not going to be UPs First World War general telling people to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but what do you propose should happen if the clampdowns and killing of black people by out of control cops backed by GOP politicians continue and even escalate? Turn a blind eye to it?
With justice for everyone in America, not an unjust system where whites are preferentially treated.
Shitty cops will no longer be allowed to be cops, and the shittiest cops will go to jail.
Who decided for all the normal people that the current system is the way things have to be? Why do they get to continue making decisions?
This is not remotely realistic in the current US, so what do you think dissenters should do?
How do they “push for fundamental police reform“ against an establishment that’s fundamentally opposed to it?