Please don't destroy Chipotle /s
0 Boosts
0 Likes
This is why riots without organization are just as ignorable as nonviolent protests without organization. Neither threaten the power of the state because there is no power in individual acts.
The french have riots and gillotines. Americans have the 2A.
The fact there isn’t more Brian Thompsons is astounding. Crazy that some lib-cuck-fag (used ironically!) is America’s biggest patriot.
someone on another platform mentioned that thier french friends likened to american protests, if nothing is on fire, its not really a protest, its just virtue signalling.
It’s a flash mob
Americana’s will only do shit that doesn’t inconvenience them. Which pretty much rules out any and all meaningful protest. They’ll gather in streets, sure. But the moment it comes at a cost- they’re far too busy.
This happens because they slept. And it got worse because they refused to wake up.
Americana’s will only do shit that doesn’t inconvenience them.
For some, sure. For others I think a good part of it is the fear of doing shit that will negatively impact others like them.
I am in a position of privilege and can afford the inconveniences, but what effective act could I take that wouldn’t result in making the lives of numerous other people tip out of balance and potentially cause them or their dependents to become unhoused or go without food or medicine?
For the average person, living has become more and more precarious. We have fewer and fewer safety nets and the rich are quick to make those they have power over feel the pain of resistance first. We have no guarantee of healthcare, less and less food assistance, unaffordable childcare, poor elder care. All purposely done by the capitalist class. This has created a human shield around them.
It’s like the only options are indirectly accelerationist. Cause unavoidable collateral damage, blame those at the top, and hope it inspires those at the bottom to act instead of turn on you? I don’t like that.
The 2020 BLM protests were hardly some small, isolated incident involving a little property damage. The unrest caused more than $2 billion in insured property losses across the United States, making it the costliest civil-disorder event in U.S. insurance history at the time. The unrest spread across more than 20 states and affected communities nationwide. Whatever your political position, pretending the damage was trivial or that this was some minor, localized event is simply ignoring the facts. That doesn’t mean every protester was violent or that every demonstration was destructive, but the scale and financial cost of the unrest were substantial.
Despite the scale of the 2020 BLM protests, the long-term results were mixed at best. They generated enormous public attention and prompted some policy changes, but they did not fundamentally transform the American political system or eliminate the racial inequalities that motivated the movement. In many respects, the country remains deeply divided, and racial hostility has become increasingly visible in our political discourse. Under the current administration, rhetoric surrounding race and immigration has only intensified those divisions. For all the protests, all the disruption, and all the money lost to property damage, the question remains: how much has actually changed for the better?
This is exactly why memes like this are counterproductive. Rather than encourage an honest discussion about what happened, what it cost, and what the consequences were, they reduce complicated events to simplistic narratives designed to provoke anger and deepen divisions. Presenting misleading information to reinforce an existing political bias is propaganda, regardless of which side does it. It is the same kind of divisive political messaging that the current administration routinely uses to mobilize its supporters and discredit its opponents. When we substitute outrage and misinformation for facts, we make meaningful discussion impossible. That is a significant part of how we arrived at our current political climate, and continuing to circulate this material without questioning its accuracy only makes the problem worse.
I think other replies describe why this is a terrible approach to looking at a movement, but you mentioned insured property loses and I couldnt help but wonder if the protests actually did any damage to insurance companies (unfortunately they didnt take even a dime).
Private U.S. property/casualty insurers’ made more in 2020 than 2019 in net underwriting gains (difference between net premiums and any claims and other insurance-related expenses)
$5.1 billion of net underwriting gains in 2020 compare to $3.7 billion of net underwriting gains a year earlier
“won’t someone please think of the property values!”
Thank you and spot on. There was zero change, hell its honestly worse now than it was because Republicans regained power.
What did we get? Hundreds if not thousands of wounded, and frankly tortured people from police brutality and zero change for the better.
The media and politicians are bought by billionaires and prevent any real change no matter how much you protest.
Vote them out.
Measuring BLM in terms of insured property damage is probably a poor way to approach a movement addressing systemic bias and social awareness. It at least runs afoul of something to:
reduce complicated events to simplistic narratives
The impacts of BLM have been met with counteraction, which is neither new or unexpected, and no meme is going to be able to fully address a complicated anything.
Two billion across the whole country isn’t all that much, especially considering how bonkers property evaluations are.
Compared to anual damages caused by climate change 2 billion is relatively small too. And the gap will widen every passing year, but that doesn’t bother the majority.
sorry but that’s an amazing photo. i hope it’s a photo, i ain’t look too close
Liberals didn’t lose their minds.
However, the media are owned and controlled by the billionaires. This allows them a lot of control of the narrative and your perception of events.
This is like Orwell shit. The party was never at war with East Asia. We never denounced the George Floyd protests. We were always anti-billionaire.
What else? The Democrats never supported Israel? I’ve heard that one recently.
I think your conflating Democrats with liberals.
Democrats are centrist, at best. This is also why it’s so silly when democrats are referred to as being radically left.
Bruh, I live in a place where the liberal party is called the Liberal Party and they’re functionally identical to the Democrats just without the same responsibilities of being the #1 state sponsor of war.
Bruh, it sounds like your “Liberal party” and the Democrats serve the same function, which is to be just left enough of the conservative party to capture the votes of liberals, while never affecting (or even advocating for) any actual progressive, liberal societal change.
Liberals aren’t left wing, this is like B-tier trolling.
I wish people would realize that the ability to protest is directly tied to social safety net.
You get beaten by a cop, you will get free healthcare that is not directly tied to your job. In the US, if you do have healthcare, it is tied to your job and your job can fire you for protesting if they want (unlike France we have no protection for being fired for political opinion).
So it is true. Americans can’t protest like the French. You just interpreted it wrongly
Not just that, but US police are extraordinarily different from police in most of the world. They trace their roots back to organizations first formed to hunt escaped slaves. They are heavily militarized, almost never face any consequences for abusing their power, and are usually encouraged to use violence against left-wing protestors.
At points during the BLM protests, Trump called in the National Guard, who proceeded shoot and kill both protestors and bystanders.
Isn’t that why some of you guys worship the 2nd amendment? in case you have to deal with a tyrannical government?
There is also the gun factor. Self defense is not generally accepted as a reason to own a gun in France, so there is no self defense carry. That automatically makes the cops less likely to react suddenly and violently.
the cops less likely to react suddenly and violently.
Truly spoken like someone who knows nothing of European policing. CRS resort to violence as the priority solution to all of their problems, the French just understand that fighting the cops is an inherent part of fighting for your rights.
French police trace their roots to sending Jews to Germany, just fyi
And drowning north Africans and such
I am not aware of a single “liberal” who got upset about that at all.
The problem might be that you either don’t know what a liberal is, or that you don’t know how people use the term in everyday life.
You saw a mildly critically post from a soccer mom. We get it, you think you’re morally righteous and anyone with a slightly different opinion is an evil LiBeRaL
www.usatoday.com/story/news/…/3317862001/
There you go, now you can be aware. This article includes quotes from Biden, Clyburn, Lightfoot, Wheeler, and Pelosi condemning property destruction. (Pelosi’s quote is about the 2017 Berkeley protests though)
Here is a followup about Dems distancing themselves from the George Floyd protests more recently.
Always with the “liberals”.
It’s a Tankie thing. They call everyone a liberal.
Nah it’s a leftist thing.
Liberals are centrists who maintain the status quo and at best ask for “reforms” without substantially wanting to change the underlying system.
They think improvements like ranked choice voting would make capitalism magically end poverty and inequality. That if a few more people benefit from social programs, that you can overlook the others still suffering because it’s “better”.
I am a leftist. I’m telling you they call everyone liberals. They even call Trump a liberal.
Liberals are moderate conservatives, a.k.a. Establishment Democrats. And then you have the GOP, which consists of extreme right Fascists, so far right they’re practically the antisis of liberal. There is no dominant centrist or leftist party in the United States. The closest we have in office are AOC and Bernie, and even they’re just barely to the left of center in my eyes.
Ranked choice voting won’t solve everything, but it’s a step in the right direction. It’s worth giving it a chance.
Liberals are moderate conservatives
What kind of brainrot is this?
Leftists often call them liberal because many of them use the term to define one who believes in Liberalism.
“Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.”
Thus anyone who is liberal believes in the right to private property. MAGA strongly believes in such. No leftist believes in such. Thus in their use, a leftist cannot be a liberal.
It’s just a different usage of a term based on cultural differences.
Usually for posts like these I assume they’re talking about the unfortunately large group of milquetoast left-leaning Americans who think the system destroying their livelihoods can be reasoned with, as if the people stepping on our necks are just unaware of their actions, and would feel really bad if we wrote them a letter explaining the situation. They’re certainly better than the neck-steppers themselves, but neither will ever actually fight to improve the situation we’re in.
Ah, the Liberal Surrogate ™️.
Insert the thing you want to use as a punching bag. The right, the left, the middle, doesn’t matter. Choose your own adventure.
To be fair, back when I would have identified as a Liberal, I was exactly the type of person to say “If we just communicate that we’re unhappy more effectively, they’ll listen this time for sure!”
I mean, I miss those days.
Bright eyed and bushy tailed. Believing that most people are kind at heart…
Now I’m pretty sure my neighbors will call ICE on my other neighbors if they ever do anything even slightly annoying.
Spent nearly a decade doing data analysis for the corrections system. Just one small part, but we interfaced with many others in different parts of government, academics, and NGOs, spinning our wheels discussing how to implement progressive reform, reform we have had mountains of hard evidence corrects a lot of problems, especially reducing recidivism. The big hurdle wasn’t corrupt politicians, or privatization of the prison system (not saying those weren’t major problems, just different ones) the big issue was that the average person is vicious, and wants to sit in their house, seeing “bad” people on a screen, get destroyed by the system. A HUGE portion of the population have a vicarious blood lust for seeing people get punished, the harsher, the better. This allows for the punitive system we have, which makes it an open field for other predatory practices. Suggesting anything to the counter will not get anyone elected, and will stir backlash from throngs of morons asking why we should do anything less than just execute criminals on the spot.
Those who don’t either are a minority that grew up differently, or had this unjust bloodlust targeted at them, or someone they care about.
They keep forgetting to put “neo” in front.
They don’t learn that part during their tankie training
Where’s that tankie factory anyways? They must come from somewhere
I dunno man, there are some who ONLY operate under the Marxist definition of “Liberal”. They don’t believe language evolves and that maybe to most people “Liberal” is the term used to describe anyone with progressive ideals.
Because the Marxist version of liberals still call themselves liberals and have intentionally erased the semantic existence of all ideologies left of them so that they can pretend to be the left.
Sure. But the bucket of people that term encapsulates doesn’t match that definition anymore.
That’s not how that works. That only makes sense if like liberal parties didn’t exist. Saying Social Democrats or Socialists or Greens are more liberal than Liberals on some issues doesn’t make any sense, it like implies that the Liberals are ontologically the most progressive.
classical liberals maybe
Classical liberalism was an improvement over what came before it. Neoliberalism is when it morphed into anarcho-capitalist-esque “austerity for the poor; rights and subsidies for corporations”
Yeah, exactly which liberals are we talking about? Maga? This shit is beyond moronic.
Philosophical liberals. Right to private property and engage in commerce, individualist, idealist, legalist ethics liberals.
maybe people who are really into Liberace?
To be fair, I’ve never met someone who doesn’t either support or denounce violent protests in general - French or otherwise. This sounds like someone getting angry at the internet as a whole, without seeming to understand that it’s made up of so many different people that it simultaneously holds all possible viewpoints at the same time.
i support violent protests. light teslas on fire, raid a walmart, block amazon delivery trucks.
but i don’t support, for example, people breaking in and robbing some independent shopkeeper’s grocery store. like, those are working class people on your side…
The people that “denounce violent protest” are people that have never been to a protest that wasn’t a planned parade. Violence is an inevitable result of protests because the state itself uses violence to stop the protest. No matter how peaceful its initial intentions of protest are.
A “protest” that has a start and end date coordinated with the state is not a protest. It is a parade.
The majority of what people call “violence” is property damage. Property damage is not violence. But somehow we convince everyone that broken windows are worse than broken bones.
The same people that “denounce violent protest” also seem to have no problem with the use of chemical weapons on crowds of unarmed people. You go out to a protest, the first time your eyes are burning from tear gas you’ll understand why any protest will fight back when violence is first placed on them by the state.
Steps to make people watching on TV “denounce violent protest”
(0) Society reaches a breaking point and protest form with the purpose to disrupt the ability of society to operate without acknowledging the injustice the protest is pointing towards. (1) Protest are labeled “violent” because of property damage. Usually with less property damage than the aftermath of the average football match “celebration” results in. But these initially small acts of property damage are the focus of the media. Very little is said about why the protest started to begin with. (2) Police use chemical weapons (banned in warfare) on their own citizens. Rubber bullets, flash bangs, hoses, etc. All acts of actual violence. Don’t believe me? Take a rubber bullet to the head and tell me it’s not violence. (3) Protesters respond to violence with self defense measures. Kick back tear gas canisters, using leaf blowers, and becoming more defensive in body armor and gas masks to maintain the disruption the protest is meant to create. Yes. The goal of a protest is to disrupt society and inconvenience you. That’s the whole point. Stop saying “it makes me not support them when they block the road”. Dude, they are blocking the road because you weren’t supporting them. Protest is the voice of the unheard. (4) Police work to escalate violence through plain clothes officers working to increase property damage and get crowds of people to reach levels of property damage not intended by the protest. An individual act of violence of a single protestor or act of property damage can be used as justification to use violence on to a larger degree on the crowd. The police goal is not to keep the protest peaceful. The goal is to escalate the violence so they can justify their own levels of violence. (5) Media covers the protest primarily on the property damage and violence of the protesters. The violence of the police is not spoken about. The violence of the police is treated as “keeping order” when it is doing the opposite. All the time we watch media people on the ground not “afraid of the violent protesters” but are literally running away from tear gas and flash bangs themselves. Next time you watch media coverage, watch how the media acts, it’s far more telling than how the media speaks. (6) The protest either dies out due to people not wanting to risk their lives as the violence is escalated by the police. OR the protests continue and are primarily maintained by those willing to use violence in self defense.
All of this time. The protestors would leave and allow the disruption to end if even a fraction of their demands are met. Paris protest started because of a failure in the education system. The government would rather spend their money on a militarized police force than on education. That should tell you a lot about the reason why protest became necessary to begin with.
TLDR: There are no “peaceful protest” that are capable of achieving the end results the protest itself is trying to achieve. The state will respond in violence to stop anything that actually has a chance of forcing change. There is no staying peaceful when chemical weapons and rubber bullets are introduced.
JK the French know how to protest
Because they’re terrible at war, and that’s sorta okay.
Education at its finest.
Oh no, not this trope again.
My problem with rioting is it often seems to be the working class shitting on their own doorstep… surely the most effective rioting would be to target parliament buildings, political party offices, banks and the properties of the very wealthy? Just my twopenn’orth.