Re: Cops 7: What Could Go Wrong?
If you're sincere, here is a discussion of the exact topic. The actual evidence would take a lifetime to fully digest and analyze, but flippancy works much better on a forum.
Political violence is analogous to warfare. War is inefficient and has undesirable side effects so the state prefers other means, but it does work, which is why states so often resort to it. Riots are the same -- they're not the first choice, but when faced with an intolerable situation they can advance a cause by making unoppressed people share the pain of the oppressed group. This increases the scope of the people who want to see a change made. It puts privileged skin in the game, and we are used to being insulated from their pain, so that's why it's so shocking.
Non-violence works if the privileged are motivated. Violence is the last resort if the privileged are indifferent.
One reason it is impressed so strongly upon us by the state through education that political violence is a moral wrong is that it does work, even when the state doesn't want it. It is change against the wishes of the status quo, and that is always labeled immoral in every society to preserve both order and the powers that be.
Notice though that the ongoing oppression of the people isn't immoral -- that's just something that regretfully "happens." Poverty and racism aren't anybody's fault, they're just "out there." And the lethality of poverty and racism are not as dramatic as a burning building even though they affect an enormously greater number of people.
Until, of course, somebody is murdered on film and it galvanizes people.
Violence is a bad solution but it is a solution. One of the jobs of the state is to foster a progressive enough society that people are not incentified to violence -- it's just not worth it. Evolution, not revolution.
So, when people riot that doesn't indicate "whoa, those are bad people." It indicates, "whoa, those people must really be getting f-cked."
It's desperation.
Originally posted by Rover
View Post
Political violence is analogous to warfare. War is inefficient and has undesirable side effects so the state prefers other means, but it does work, which is why states so often resort to it. Riots are the same -- they're not the first choice, but when faced with an intolerable situation they can advance a cause by making unoppressed people share the pain of the oppressed group. This increases the scope of the people who want to see a change made. It puts privileged skin in the game, and we are used to being insulated from their pain, so that's why it's so shocking.
Non-violence works if the privileged are motivated. Violence is the last resort if the privileged are indifferent.
One reason it is impressed so strongly upon us by the state through education that political violence is a moral wrong is that it does work, even when the state doesn't want it. It is change against the wishes of the status quo, and that is always labeled immoral in every society to preserve both order and the powers that be.
Notice though that the ongoing oppression of the people isn't immoral -- that's just something that regretfully "happens." Poverty and racism aren't anybody's fault, they're just "out there." And the lethality of poverty and racism are not as dramatic as a burning building even though they affect an enormously greater number of people.
Until, of course, somebody is murdered on film and it galvanizes people.
Violence is a bad solution but it is a solution. One of the jobs of the state is to foster a progressive enough society that people are not incentified to violence -- it's just not worth it. Evolution, not revolution.
So, when people riot that doesn't indicate "whoa, those are bad people." It indicates, "whoa, those people must really be getting f-cked."
It's desperation.
Comment