Two months since the riots and still no national conversation

[Nepperhan]

Oh, then no one needs to make any changes, we can just all go out and hang out in the streets with the protesters and everyone will be happy! No need for a national conversation except the one happening in the street!

You jump to some odd conclusions. If some people are joining the protests, then consciousness has been raised, which is a first step to solving a problem.

I see basically everybody talking or yelling and nobody listening and those who aren’t tied to either extreme are ignored at best and lumped in with “the enemy” at worst.

I don’t think that is what is happening at all. It is a misnomer to date results from the looting. I realize that is what seems to have made the biggest impression in some minds, however, as contrasted to the tragic situations and the resultant protests.

What I have seen is some candid reckoning as to the present status and treatment of minorities in this society. That is a positive development.

 

[Annie]

You jump to some odd conclusions. If some people are joining the protests, then consciousness has been raised, which is a first step to solving a problem.

My point is that for elected officials, who are the people who can actually do something about the problem being protested, to merely join the protesters is an empty gesture.

It doesn’t mean their consciousness has been raised–if it had been, they would be working on the problem.

It probably means that they think the simulation of being on the side of the protesters and concerned about the problem will help them in their future elections.

 

[Nepperhan]

My point is that for elected officials, who are the people who can actually do something about the problem being protested, to merely join the protesters is an empty gesture.

Well I disagree.

On the larger issue, we now have CEOs of major corporations having dialogue about race in America. This is what was called in the sixties “agonizing reappraisal”; which is good for the society.

 

[Annie]

Well, I’m glad you’re happy.

Actually, I’m not.

Any time someone claims that this or that is racist, CEOs and elected officials, whose continued success depends in part on their reputation, cave and “donate” money.

An elected official who wants to maintain his appearance of being for his constituents who goes out and joins the protesters instead of doing the hard work of sorting through proposed solutions and competing interests and needs is not “doing something.”

As long as you evaluate people based on their facades, you will be deluded.

 

[jeannetherese]

Dialoguing is nothing new and is a one-time cost. I’d rather see them giving raises or putting that dialogue money into job creation.

 

[Adamek]

money into job creation.

The notion of "job creation’ seems to imply that there are groups of people in our society for whom special conditions have to be created or special jobs need to be created in order for them to work. I don’t see how this could be a long-term solution.

 

[jeannetherese]

That was not the sense in which I meant it when i mentioned job-creation.
a business which is growing and expanding its operations may well need additional employees; in this situation, jobs are created organically through business development. I am not looking for a make-work solution. However, I would not object to some sort of jobs corps (think New Deal under FDR) which could create a sort of workfare while improving infrastructure in our country.

 

[Anrakyr]

That is giving in to bullying and extortion.

Police shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place.

Oh, then no one needs to make any changes, we can just all go out and hang out in the streets with the protesters and everyone will be happy! No need for a national conversation except the one happening in the street!

How can you go from having the point (agree with it or not) then loose it again one post later?

 

[Annie]

Police shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place.

So it is all right to break the law because a few police broke the law?

ETA: I think one can think some changes are needed in policing and that the rioting and violence are wrong both at the same time.

How can you go from having the point (agree with it or not) then loose it again one post later?

What do you mean? I was disagreeing that the elected officials’ joining the protesters was actually doing something. The elected officials are the ones who can make changes; if all they do is join the protesters, it is an empty virtue signal.

 

[Anrakyr]

So it is all right to break the law because a few police broke the law?

Protesting is not supposed to be nice or polite. The idea is if the powers that be won’t follow the rules and there’s no legal recourse then be ungovernable.
If you stop that step there’s only one left and it’s much much worse.

The elected officials are the ones who can make changes; if all they do is join the protesters, it is an empty virtue signal.

The mayor and governors in this case can not do as much as you think.

 

[Sunbreak]

Protesting is not supposed to be nice or polite.

Incorrect. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no .law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble.”

Rioting is not peaceable. There is no right in this country to riot.

 

[Anrakyr]

Rioting is not peaceable. There is no right in this country to riot.

Good thing I said protesting.

 

[Adamek]

the offended have gotten so angry they are not going to allow that conversation to be dictated by anyone else other then them.

Who are “the offended” in this case? Have you been “so mistreated” that you need to burn down cities? And who offended all the white millenials in Seattle?

 

[Anrakyr]

Who are “the offended” in this case? Have you been “so mistreated” that you need to burn down cities? And who offended all the white millenials in Seattle?

So no one got shot? No one’s rights were trampled? No cop gets to walk (again)?

Sorry guys it’s been a big misunderstanding, pack it up.

 

[old_man_chris]

Because most people would be horrified by what’s really happening in these cities. In any normal time the media would have wall to wall coverage of the riots, but in the times in which we live they are more concerned with how they might give the President a boost. So instead they call violent riots ‘mostly peaceful protests’, when they mention them at all. In the meantime, here’s some fear-porn about covid.