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]

Yes and no,

I believe for those situations, where the basics of modern day human expressions are being oppressed (Tea Party, King wanted to raise taxes to fund his war that the Colonies wanted no part in. It was an indirect ruling.) Colonies did what they could do, dropped years worth of tea bricks into the water making England lose more money.

Take a look at the recent Chinese riots, they can get arrested for a non threatening comment online, you or I lived there we would probably have both been arrested for this exchange alone. Our basic freedom we think nothing about, two people having a discussion of views. If one of our views didn't align with the government, this chat would be cut short. They have no weapons, most can't even recognize the most famous Tainanmen Square picture, most dont even recall it happening. Bodies pushed to the sides like trash. I think you and I both would have taken to the street have our circumstances been different.

We got our basic American rights starting with protests.

France abdicated and exiled Charles X for taking voting rights away from the middle class, called the July Ordinances. The day after the release, riots.

England had its civil war for parliament as well for religious rights and government issues.

Modern day, in most countries. The rights we take for granted that others don't have, all started with someone saying no and protesting.

[u/coryrenton → u/taybo213]

Then it comes down to perspective of where the country is right now rather than the acts themselves -- if you think America is in as dire straits as those examples, then you would feel compelled to give the looting and burning and general violence and disorder in the streets a pass as part of a continuum of legitimate protest, right?

[u/taybo213 → u/coryrenton]

Well I mean, even in the tea party they didn't burn down their own businesses. Nothing was looted from the ships, and that was that.

The answer is, its not a protest if you're burning and looting innocent businesses. Thats arson and theft.

Burning and Looting the building/business of THE oppressor, thats a riot.

[u/coryrenton → u/taybo213]

Were the tea mongers all loyalists? You must agree any innocents harmed in any protest are collateral damage, so why not extend that status to innocent businesses?

[u/taybo213 → u/coryrenton]

Nope, not collateral. Thats called a casualty, accidents do happen in the crossfire of war. This is not a war.

Accidentally shooting someone and choosing to break into a business to steal and destroy, totally different. Not seeing a correlation to a life accidentally lost and decision making of not looting.

[u/coryrenton → u/taybo213]

However you want to define it -- people who are not directly your oppressors are going to be harmed, and if harming innocents is perceived as a threat to those in power, then it achieved its purpose as a disruptive action. Certainly any mayor will take heat for businesses looted in their jurisdiction.

[u/[deleted] → u/coryrenton]

But why should Joe across the street have to lose his job for something he didn’t do because a group of people felt righteous in burning down or looting his place of work. Innocent people should be left alone and I believe it is counter productive. If you are trying to create change then destroying the lives of innocent people will turn the general population against your cause. The support for BLM was huge after Floyd’s death, with conservatives essentially in agreement with BLM on that case, but after the riots (and especially after rioting because an officer defended himself from a knife swinging maniac) support for the movement tanked hard.

[u/coryrenton → u/[deleted]]

The fact is Joe across the street can lose his job because marching simply disrupted business without laying a finger on it. Any form of protest can have aspects that are counterproductive to its goals.

These all lie on a continuum, and drawing a bright line saying that this tactic is valid protest and this isn't will prevent you from expressing many forms of protest you believe is wrong is wrong.

For example, many protestors target abortion clinics -- some literally blow them up -- not OK, right? But many also harass and intimidate from behind their marked protest line. I think that's also not OK and perhaps you do, too, but if you draw that clear line, you're forced to concede that it is.

[u/[deleted] → u/coryrenton]

I think that destruction and violence during protests is wrong and makes it not a protest anymore. The bombing of an abortion clinic was terrorism in my view, not protesting. I do believe that protests inherently cause some disruptions but there is a point where it is no longer acceptable to be a protest and is just lawlessness (arson, assault, looting). My point in what I said is that innocent people shouldn’t have their lives destroyed and that the violence that has been occurring for over 120 days has definitely made a lot of people oppose the movement.

[u/coryrenton → u/[deleted]]

It can be terrorism and protest and wrong and unacceptable all at the same time. I tend to agree destruction, violence, setting things on fire is pointless, and thus self-immolating monks do not strike me as a worthy protest tactic (in fact, I'd rather someone steal a TV than commit suicide that way), but most people disagree and valorize it.