Has anyone been actually suggesting a "George Floyd defense" (a descendant of the Twinkie Defense) for people who commit property crimes in the wake of the George Floyd incident? Who actually has said this? I don't mean a generalized "people on the left," I mean real statements by real people.
20 comments:
I watched some of the vandalism and looting (of a CVS store) today in D.C. live on a YouTube feed. No excuse possible. I for one will not accept one.
Hooray for the protesters, boo to the criminals.
Has anyone been actually suggesting a "George Floyd defense" (a descendant of the Twinkie Defense) for people who commit property crimes in the wake of the George Floyd incident? Who actually has said this?
I suppose plenty of people must have said something like this to themselves. When we are tempted to sin, we can make up all sorts of 'Twinkie Defenses'. They can even sound really convincing at the moment.
But people talk as if there are public figures out there, who are defending the looters in this way. "People on the left", I understand, are saying this. Who?
But people talk as if there are public figures out there, who are defending the looters in this way.
Specifically, who are these "people" you are talking about.
My daughter is driving home from work now worried about being arrested because of a curfew and also rioters attacking her. This isn't funny.
If my daughter is harmed it is because of senseless violent insanity.
Why isn't that something you speak out against rather than what people will think of the "left".
People are looting in many cases a) because they want to discredit Black Lives Matter by making it seem as if they are responsible for violence, b) because they are demanding more radical change, but mostly c) they are taking advantage of chaos.
My point is that the looting is wrong, and is so obviously wrong, why do people think that it is being defended?
People are looting in many cases a) because they want to discredit Black Lives Matter by making it seem as if they are responsible for violence,
This rather gets to the heart of the reason why I think politics causes people to lose their minds. You favor the aims of BLM and that's OK (AFAIK). But you reflexively attribute the recent violent actions to your political opponents when the federal government has not determined this.
b) because they are demanding more radical change,
Yes, in their mind they are making that rationalization.
c) they are taking advantage of chaos.
But they wouldn't take that advantage without the rationalization of b). Unless of course they had abandoned morality.
My point is that the looting is wrong, and is so obviously wrong, why do people think that it is being defended?
You just provided 3 reasons for looting. Why do you think they are wrong?
BTW, my daughter is safe at home.
No, I think we have to investigate to figure out whether the opponents of BLM are responsible for the looting, their more extreme supports are doing it, or the third option. No, they need not be using rationalization b. They are doing it because they can, and think they can get away with it. I am responding to people who assume that the BLM supporters are mostly to blame. We don't know. My top candidate for what is going on is option 3, with no political argument behind it at all. It is because some people are jerks.
Sorry, your response is hard to read.
But as far as I can tell, you are interested in only investigating BLM opponents and not leftist groups like antifa?
My top candidate for what is going on is option 3, with no political argument behind it at all. It is because some people are jerks.
But not all protests result in looting do they? Yet these seem to. Seems to me that something else is going on.
But again, I noticed that your primary concern is politics rather than our immortal soul.
Why isn't that something you speak out against rather than what people will think of the "left".
That "some people are jerks" means that sin is OK with you?
"sin is OK with you?"
I don't think Victor is saying that sin is OK, but rather that it is inevitable.
Like I said above, I watched the looting of a CVS store last night in real time. The people doing that did not appear to have the slightest interest interest in the demonstrations. They just wanted their loot. They were laughing and bragging to each other what about what they had taken. In full view of cameras!
That said, do I think they should have been shot, like our "president" (sic) wanted? No way! There's nothing in that store worth a human life.
Wouldn't it be better simply to refrain from engaging in these political discussions if you think they harm one's spiritual life?
Not all political discussions harm one's spiritual life, but when people get irrational and carried away by hate and anger it can. I am speaking to Victor as a fellow Christian in an attempt to remind him of what his priorities should be.
You're not a Christian, so maybe you think it's silly to be worried about a person's spiritual life, but I am. Yours too.
I don't agree with all of his political posts but I have seen no sign of irrationality in them. As far as being angry, didn't Jesus get angry at the money-changers? Seems to me to be quite appropriate to get angry about unjust acts.
If he were angry with the people committing the crimes, then you would have a point. But he's angry with some unnamed "people" for supposedly blaming "people of the left" for something they have no evidence of. It then seems that he did exactly what he was accusing these "people" of doing. Making accusations with insufficient evidence against political opponents.
Furthermore, he listed "because they are demanding more radical change," as a reason for the looting. I assume the radical change he is referring to is for police to stop killing black men like George Floyd. So it looks to me that he is actually agreeing that some people think they are justified in their looting because of George Floyd's death. Isn't that the "George Floyd Defense" mentioned in the OP?
So, maybe not irrational, but not too well thought out. I see much calmer and better reasoned arguments and reactions on other topics.
I'm glad to hear you don't think it's silly to be worried about another's spiritual life. Then you should be able to understand my point even if you may not agree. One shouldn't let politics guide your reason.
Hal,
If he only gave option 3 as the reason for looting, then as you can see, I would have had nothing to say. It was the other 2 options that I addressed in my previous post.
Yes, he can be angry with both.
But I don't think the proper response to someone you think is making unsubstantiated claims is to go ahead make unsubstantiated claims yourself. Maybe you do and that would explain why you're having trouble seeing the problem I am.
Also, I think looters causing massive physical and financial destruction is a more urgent cause of alarm than someone making what you think are unsubstantiated claims. Calling the looters jerks is on the "Someone should talk to their manager" scale of rage. I think the proportionate responses are mis-prioritized.
Some of the jerks.
Scottsdale? Scottsdale???
That's impossible for me to imagine. Now I realize that I moved away from there in 1975, but the idea of there being riots in Scottsdale is inconceivable to me. It's like hearing there were riots on Martha's Vineyard.
Yep.
Looks like there are some pretty snooty looters in AZ.
I kind of doubt that anybody reading this is tempted to loot. I think those people are doing untold harm.
But I think it's a mistake to think the looting is part of the protests. I think it is happening, mostly for reasons other than the protests, people using the protests as an excuse to commit crimes.
Victor,
I kind of doubt that anybody reading this is tempted to loot. I think those people are doing untold harm.
But I think most people here could easily find themselves in the midst of a riot. If it's happening in Scottsdale, why not down the street from you or me? It has become personal for me not by choice but by circumstances when my daughter expressed fear for her life.
This is America and we should celebrate our heritage of protesting and petitioning the government. But they have to be safe for everyone. Can we agree on that?
Now. I mention this only as a take-away from a sociology class I took, not as any sort of expert opinion or a political statement:
People behave differently in crowds than they normally would, so it's possible that peaceful protesters could be led down the wrong path if there were enough of the crowd going down that path. So some of the rioters could have started out as peaceful protesters.
Post a Comment