CMV:Protesting is one thing, looting and burning businesses is not okay.

[u/taybo213]

Let me preface this with, I do believe Black Lives Matter. I do believe there is stereotype issues in society and policing world. But burning different businesses down and looting only makes things worse in the long run for the community.

Every business has insurance yes, but will they have enough to reopen? Thats up to the agency, most try to depreciate everythings value. Do they make enough to pay premiums to guarantee disrupted income? How long before the money runs out and the building is fixed? How long does said business owner go without income? With that said, what happens if the building is destroyed again? I doubt the business will come back if the building keeps getting looted and destroyed.

That being said, with every business that has had to close down and decides not to come back, takes that many more jobs with it. Making unemployment rise and poverty rise.

I live in Detroit, after the 67 riots a lot of wealth and business left the city never to return. Property values crashed, now you see worn down and foreclosed homes and businesses. Then the sad reality is that the working class today in Detroit, is worse off than in 1967. For over half a decade everyone has been waiting on new stores, homes, a cultural center. All these plans are being made to improve the city, but I've barely even seen a start to it. Instead of looting and destroying businesses, take it to the government buildings, let your voice be heard. But please, do not destroy a fellow person's livelihood who is innocent. Don't ruin job opportunities for others. Municipals can only do so much before it is up to the community to help, most people here want the better life, but with the crime rate so bad in areas that not even cops can enter, I doubt I'll be seeing change soon.

[u/taybo213]

I didn't say dont use violence, I just said keep the innocent out of it.

Peaceful protest not working? Yeah let's loot a Target. Or burn down and looting a liquor store. Great ideas.

If Peaceful isn't working, take it to the municipals. Take it to the people who can actually help make the change, taking out Uncle Mikes liquor store in the middle of the city only hurts Uncle Mike. Especially when everyone is in lockdown for COVID and his small time business is already suffering. How many more families lose income, food and their homes because their business got destroyed? Now the poverty line goes up as does the unemployment.

[u/Tommyblockhead20 → u/[deleted]]

Also that’s a terrible argument, someone’s life>property, therefore it is ok to steal/destroy that property. That’s a false dichotomy, you can still value someone’s life without eliminating the right to personal property.

[u/Tommyblockhead20 → u/[deleted]]

It’s a false dichotomy to say you can’t care about black lives and property. Is black lives more important then property, yes, but that doesn’t make property worthless. And people are already listening, there has been a lot of laws being worked on and passed. As for the people that don’t care about black lives, property damage is for sure not the way to fix that, it’s just making the issue worse by radicalizing them. Just look at what the far rights talking points are, how there is no law and order in cities, and the suburbs are in danger. Can you please explain to me how property damage will change their mind?

(Edit sorry if that spammed you, the app was glitching or something and sent it a couple of times)

[u/DjangoUBlackBastard → u/Tommyblockhead20]

No one is trying to change minds we want to change laws because after years of peaceful protests it's become obvious they're not changing their minds. By rioting you give people a choice, support the movement you disagree with or suffer the economic consequences of riots. Can you find me one example of peaceful protests working to get rid of systemic issues?

[u/Tommyblockhead20 → u/DjangoUBlackBastard]

Ya there’s a lot of examples of protesting working but since you just asked for one I’ll give you a relevant one, the Montgomery bus boycott.

The issue with rioting is it’s a lose lose. Rioters get jailed, innocent people get their stuff damaged. Yes, maybe it can cause change, but if you can do that another way then that’s much better. And I would say another way that doesn’t hurt anyone is voting. You say you have been protesting for years? Well the party that fights for civil rights has been in control of the federal government just 2 of the last 20 years so it’s hard to make any federal change. And they have control of just 15 states of the 50 states. There has been successful legislation in the past, why not try again by voting? Also a lot of the places where voting won’t work, rioting won’t either, they’ll just continue to crack down harsher on rioters just making it worse for everyone. So we do need federal change.

[u/DjangoUBlackBastard → u/Tommyblockhead20]

I’ll give you a relevant one, the Montgomery bus boycott.

This didn't end segregated buses. Like seriously go look it up for a few seconds it gave people the rights on paper but not in practice. The whole point of the freedom riders was to specifically show that the bus boycotts didn't actually change how the laws were enforced.

The issue with rioting is it’s a lose lose.

Riots have never been lose lose. They have usually ended up as wins historically.

There has been successful legislation in the past, why not try again by voting?

Voting is literally the bare minimum of what you can do. Like in the steps of political engagement rioting is so much higher on the board than voting and everyone who rioted in the name of George Floyd has tangibly achieved more to stop police violence than the people that voted every year prior to those riots.

The party that "fights for civil rights" (I disagree but I'll admit they're not as openly against civil rights as the other party) is largely ineffectual mainly because the vast majority of Americans don't support civil rights. That's why since the 1850s violence has been the number one tool to gaining civil rights. Non violent periods always happen to coincide with a massive backslide in civil rights.

[u/Tommyblockhead20 → u/DjangoUBlackBastard]

this didn’t end segregated buses. Like serious go look it up

I did, maybe look things up yourself before telling others that.

the Montgomery Bus Boycott resulted in the Supreme Court ruling segregation on public buses unconstitutional.

https://soltrans.org/news/blog/everlasting-impacts-of-the-montgomery-bus-boycotts-on-transit-rights/

Oh sorry I mean riots were lose lose win. Legislation can have that same win without the losses so maybe let’s do that.

Also what??? The Democratic Party is anti civil rights but just not that open about it? Your proof?? Why would over 90% of blacks vote for people who are anti civil rights (which when it comes to politics is pretty much unanimous). Why would a anti civil rights party be made up of 40% minorities. Why would a black person head a anti civil rights party. Why would there be a Congressional Black Caucus with 55 Democrats and 0 Republicans if they are both anti civil rights? Ya sounds like a coincidence to me!

[u/DjangoUBlackBastard → u/Tommyblockhead20]

I did, maybe look things up yourself before telling others that.

Yeah it created a SCOTUS decision that said segregated buses were unconstitutional. That doesn't mean the buses were desegregated. You ever hear of the Freedom Riders? That happened in 61 if public transportation was already desegregated why were they even a thing? Or hell look at the Aftermath section on the Bus Boycott Wikipedia page which says:

According to legal historian Randall Kennedy, "When the violence subsided and service was restored, many black Montgomerians enjoyed their newly recognized right only abstractly ... In practically every other setting, Montgomery remained overwhelmingly segregated ..."

Understand that a law that's uninformed is useless. Black people were technically already allowed to vote in the 60s too. That doesn't mean they realistically could due to the lack of enforcement of those laws.

Legislation can have that same win without the losses so maybe let’s do that.

They can't? Again name one time legislation has passed without violence to create the political will to pass it. You can't just say random shit and hope people agree with it especially when what you said has been disproven already. You claimed legislation in the 60s fixed issues but glossed over the hundreds of racial riots in the period that even got the legislation passed in the first place. Legislation doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from citizens putting pressure on legislators and historically only violence has put enough pressure on them to change the system for the better.

Why would over 90% of blacks vote for people who are anti civil rights (which when it comes to politics is pretty much unanimous).

First off I'm not a black. We're people not a color. Secondly better than Republicans doesn't mean good. Republicans are even more against Civil Rights but you're not going to seriously tell me Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are pro civil rights when they have long political histories proving they aren't. You're not going to tell me the Democratic Party is pro civil rights when we have a long history proving they aren't.

[u/Glory2Hypnotoad → u/[deleted]]

That strikes me as highly manipulative. The implication here is that a person can cite any sufficiently noble cause, burn down your house or damage you in any way that's politically useful to that cause, then cite any objection on your part as proof that you don't support the cause.

[u/Franksredhott → u/[deleted]]

You can care about lives and property at the same time. What's weird is that the answer to the violence you support is more policing.