|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. Show nested quote +I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one.
If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do.
|
On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do.
That's not how democracy works. You understand that "the people making exploitation worse" are usually voted by the - now rioting - people, right?
I'm just making sure here since you have most stuff backwards, including not even remotely understanding why tear gas is banned in warfare and "okay" to use against crowds (btw, not just tear gas, pepper spray too - and, if you want to be funny, yes, spraying deodorant in the face of an enemy would also be a warcrime, at least technically).
Interesting btw that you didn't even mention the example you asked multiple times for.
+ Show Spoiler +
Too close for comfort?
|
On January 29 2019 10:42 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. That's not how democracy works. You understand that "the people making exploitation worse" are usually voted by the - now rioting - people, right? I'm just making sure here since you have most stuff backwards, including not even remotely understanding why tear gas is banned in warfare and "okay" to use against crowds (btw, not just tear gas, pepper spray too - and, if you want to be funny, yes, spraying deodorant in the face of an enemy would also be a warcrime, at least technically). Interesting btw that you didn't even mention the example you asked multiple times for. + Show Spoiler +Too close for comfort?
I'm sure we have many disagreements on how democracy works. But I don't think voting for ones own exploitation negates that exploitation. Surely we're all familiar with the concept of coercion?
"Don't riot or we will tear gas you!"
"What if we're rioting because you are, I don't know, committing genocide?"
"You get the tear gas"
"You mean just like if we win a championship and flip cars"
"Probably much more tear gas for the genocide one, you'll probably be thankful for the teargas really, it's our least bad option"
We can replace "genocide" with whatever exploitative practices we'd like
I wasn't sure which particular event or what exactly you're asking about it?
|
I'm actually out, i'm man enough to admit that i simply do not even live in the same world as you, so in no way, shape or form would we find a consensus here.
As mother said: if you got nothing nice to say.
|
On January 29 2019 11:44 m4ini wrote:
I'm actually out, i'm man enough to admit that i simply do not even live in the same world as you, so in no way, shape or form would we find a consensus here.
As mother said: if you got nothing nice to say.
I don't think admitting to living in different worlds has much to do with masculinity or "manness" but that's probably a fair conclusion.
|
On January 29 2019 11:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 11:44 m4ini wrote:
I'm actually out, i'm man enough to admit that i simply do not even live in the same world as you, so in no way, shape or form would we find a consensus here.
As mother said: if you got nothing nice to say. I don't think admitting to living in different worlds has much to do with masculinity or "manness" but that's probably a fair conclusion.
Man that's a classic gh post that I've missed for quite some time. Never failing to unpack stuff that so many others gloss over.
|
On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do.
What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots.
|
On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots.
Riots for what?
|
On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what?
Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot.
|
On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot.
Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ?
|
On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ?
Every year at the winning city of the NHL.
|
On January 29 2019 17:46 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ? Every year at the winning city of the NHL.
Is the argument that there is no exploitation in the NHL or any of those people's workplace? (should probably stick to European references though given our location)
I think that only rose to the level of using tear gas one time that I'm familiar with.
|
On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ?
Is this a sincere question? Are you not familiar with hooliganism?
|
On January 29 2019 17:58 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ? Is this a sincere question? Are you not familiar with hooliganism?
Very much so to both. I was called a hooligan (and deserved it) more than once myself. It's pretty rare if at all tear gas is used in such situations, but it would also beg the question; do you think they aren't exploited?
@JOCK/THREAD EDIT On January 29 2019 18:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ? Some of the 2011 riots in the UK were definitely this. They involved looting shoe shops, beating up pensioners etc. In my area, Manchester, there was absolutely zero political component to the riots. Some teenagers had seen the riots in London and thought it was an opportunity to cause some trouble so they set fire to things and stole candy.
I don't want to spam the thread so I'm doing this+ Show Spoiler + (if you guys don't care if I respond to people as the disagreements come up even if that means lots of posts so long as I remain respectful and stuff I'll do that instead but I don't want people to get upset at me for this discussion disrupting regular discourse).
Beating up pensioners is messed up (if that means what I presume).
I think you jumped in part way, my argument isn't that every riot "has a political component" so while I'm interested in the event in general I'm afraid it's not quite what we're looking for.
The reason we're looking for a "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" is because (and I'm truncating this) I said
I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it.
then there was stuff about my silly idealism
and then short flippant exchange (no animosity on my side guys just some good-natured ribbing)
which led to me positing
If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do.
which prompted the suggestion riots will happen without exploitation
TLDR: so we're looking for a riot where the rioters weren't exploited or rioting in the name of the exploited or exploiters, a riot without exploitation (preceding it, not active rioters not exploiting that wouldn't be a riot and would be tautological and we'd have been done already).
It was a bit of a rhetorical question for which I presumed people would do this part in their heads and skip to their position that while they've never seen people free from exploitation riot, they are confident that it would happen. Then I thought we would pick up from there.
It appears for one reason or another people were under the impression I was looking for something else.
|
On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ?
Some of the 2011 riots in the UK were definitely this. They involved looting shoe shops, beating up pensioners etc.
In my area, Manchester, there was absolutely zero political component to the riots. Some teenagers had seen the riots in London and thought it was an opportunity to cause some trouble so they set fire to things and stole candy.
|
On January 29 2019 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 17:58 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ? Is this a sincere question? Are you not familiar with hooliganism? Very much so to both. I was called a hooligan (and deserved it) more than once myself. It's pretty rare if at all tear gas is used in such situations, but it would also beg the question; do you think they aren't exploited? @JOCK/THREAD EDIT Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 18:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ? Some of the 2011 riots in the UK were definitely this. They involved looting shoe shops, beating up pensioners etc. In my area, Manchester, there was absolutely zero political component to the riots. Some teenagers had seen the riots in London and thought it was an opportunity to cause some trouble so they set fire to things and stole candy. I don't want to spam the thread so I'm doing this + Show Spoiler + (if you guys don't care if I respond to people as the disagreements come up even if that means lots of posts so long as I remain respectful and stuff I'll do that instead but I don't want people to get upset at me for this discussion disrupting regular discourse). Beating up pensioners is messed up (if that means what I presume). I think you jumped in part way, my argument isn't that every riot "has a political component" so while I'm interested in the event in general I'm afraid it's not quite what we're looking for. The reason we're looking for a "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" is because (and I'm truncating this) I said Show nested quote +I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. then there was stuff about my silly idealism and then short flippant exchange (no animosity on my side guys just some good-natured ribbing) which led to me positing Show nested quote +
If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do.
which prompted the suggestion riots will happen without exploitation TLDR: so we're looking for a riot where the rioters weren't exploited or rioting in the name of the exploited or exploiters, a riot without exploitation (preceding it, not active rioters not exploiting that wouldn't be a riot and would be tautological and we'd have been done already). It was a bit of a rhetorical question for which I presumed people would do this part in their heads and skip to their position that while they've never seen people free from exploitation riot, they are confident that it would happen. Then I thought we would pick up from there. It appears for one reason or another people were under the impression I was looking for something else.
I don't think this is even possible, depending on how far you are willing to go with your definition of 'exploited'.
The Manchester version of the 2011 riot was purely opportunistic and was all about stealing shoes and candy, but it was 'inspired' by the riot responding to a police shooting and the subsequent failure to investigate.
You could say that the riot wouldn't have happened if not for the exploitation.
You could also say that until we live in a society where most people aren't exploited - the whole question is moot because there's always some level of exploitation there.
I don't think that's always too helpful though.
I've never seen people free from exploitation - let alone rioting people. That's why I chose to 'localize' the issue and look at immediate causes rather than a fluctuating baseline level of exploitation being responsible. The more immediate causes were strong - and yet if you want to look deeper into these particular riots there was a capitalistic, exploitative thing about them.
|
On January 29 2019 18:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 17:58 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ? Is this a sincere question? Are you not familiar with hooliganism? Very much so to both. I was called a hooligan (and deserved it) more than once myself. It's pretty rare if at all tear gas is used in such situations, but it would also beg the question; do you think they aren't exploited? @JOCK/THREAD EDIT On January 29 2019 18:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 29 2019 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 17:29 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 16:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 16:09 Sr18 wrote:On January 29 2019 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 10:29 m4ini wrote:On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Like which ones? First of May in germany. I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one. If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do. What makes you think the rioting is caused by exploitation? Some people just like to riot and will find any excuse to engage in it. Do you think football hooligans riot because they are being exploited? Even in a world without any exploitation, there will be riots. Riots for what? Fun? Adrenalin? Like I said, some people don't need a reason to riot, they need a reason not to riot. Can you point me to a particular "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" ? Some of the 2011 riots in the UK were definitely this. They involved looting shoe shops, beating up pensioners etc. In my area, Manchester, there was absolutely zero political component to the riots. Some teenagers had seen the riots in London and thought it was an opportunity to cause some trouble so they set fire to things and stole candy. I don't want to spam the thread so I'm doing this + Show Spoiler + (if you guys don't care if I respond to people as the disagreements come up even if that means lots of posts so long as I remain respectful and stuff I'll do that instead but I don't want people to get upset at me for this discussion disrupting regular discourse). Beating up pensioners is messed up (if that means what I presume). I think you jumped in part way, my argument isn't that every riot "has a political component" so while I'm interested in the event in general I'm afraid it's not quite what we're looking for. The reason we're looking for a "riot for fun" or a "riot for adrenaline" is because (and I'm truncating this) I said I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. then there was stuff about my silly idealism and then short flippant exchange (no animosity on my side guys just some good-natured ribbing) which led to me positing
If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do.
which prompted the suggestion riots will happen without exploitation TLDR: so we're looking for a riot where the rioters weren't exploited or rioting in the name of the exploited or exploiters, a riot without exploitation (preceding it, not active rioters not exploiting that wouldn't be a riot and would be tautological and we'd have been done already). It was a bit of a rhetorical question for which I presumed people would do this part in their heads and skip to their position that while they've never seen people free from exploitation riot, they are confident that it would happen. Then I thought we would pick up from there. It appears for one reason or another people were under the impression I was looking for something else. I don't think this is even possible, depending on how far you are willing to go with your definition of 'exploited'. The Manchester version of the 2011 riot was purely opportunistic and was all about stealing shoes and candy, but it was 'inspired' by the riot responding to a police shooting and the subsequent failure to investigate. You could say that the riot wouldn't have happened if not for the exploitation. You could also say that until we live in a society where most people aren't exploited - the whole question is moot because there's always some level of exploitation there. I don't think that's always too helpful though. I've never seen people free from exploitation - let alone rioting people.
This was indeed the point of this.
If you stop the exploitation the rioting stops, if you stop the rioting the exploitation gets worse until you do
Which I think demonstrated "riots will happen without exploitation" to be an unsubstantiated assertion based in conjecture which supports my argument that
I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it.
is functionally superior to the position
not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option.
and moreover I believe the entire discussion supported the position which sparked the disagreement.
I wonder what excuses the liberal and "sensible" ppl of TL will find (for the use of teargas causing serious injury to a protester)
which came to a longer post
for which I think the poster had a similar problem as I did. In that the point wasn't about whether the sensible center of TL would object to the specific instance, but rather justify the oppressive police crackdown, and take issue with it going too far.
People were indignant at the suggestion so I was walking everyone through what the other poster was referring to so they could see it for themselves more plainly. I do sincerely hope that was helpful for folks.
If we missed it; we got to the point of saying we need oppressive crackdowns with teargas in order to prevent hooliganism and sports riots, and also oppress criminal elements of righteous riots as the "least bad option" which was supposed to have been foreshadowed by my quote demo with genocide, but managed to happen anyway despite sitting there.
I stand by my assertion that addressing the exploitation is the least bad option, not manufacturing and deploying teargas .
|
You are mistaking correlation for causation. You can't say that because the rioters have been exploited in their lives, they are rioting because they have been exploited. You could make the exact same argument with watching TV or wearing pants.
|
On January 29 2019 20:02 Neneu wrote:
You are mistaking correlation for causation. You can't say that because the rioters have been exploited in their lives, they are rioting because they have been exploited. You could make the exact same argument with watching TV or wearing pants.
You're mistaking my argument in this case. While I do believe that rioting is caused by exploitation it is not necessary for argument.
You may be right that without exploitation there will still be riots, but a 100% correlation between exploitation and riots, and a 0% correlation with non-exploited people rioting does support my argument, while not proving it conclusively.
If I'm correct we would also see some correlation between however we would quantify exploitation and the likelihood of someone to riot. We wouldn't expect it to be absolute though since there are certainly other factors at play, like repercussions for example. If riots are met with bullets that means the exploitation must be much worse before people riot, than if riots are met with teargas. It also means the riot will be proportionally (though not exactly) more violent the more oppressive the crackdowns.
My argument suggests that the more violent the oppressive crack down, the more violent the riots in an ever escalating feedback loop until one side breaks and it starts again.
So then, my assertion remains that addressing the oppression, not making and using teargas is the least bad option.
We can not know which argument is objectively correct in the sense that we can determine the answer to 2+2=
We can only look at the available evidence, make an educated guess, and test it.
EDIT: I'd add that things like watching TV, wearing pants, and other examples are unlikely to have such a 100%-0% correlation along with the additional correlations I mentioned.
For an analogy, prisons don't give you safer societies, reformed behavior does. If prisons don't reform behavior then they just make better criminals that are harder to catch and lockup. This is someplace where you guys are ahead of us in many countries. The US has the most people in prison and I don't think anyone would venture to say the US is the safest society.
In this case it's oppressive crackdowns. Oppressive crackdowns don't stop riots, reducing exploitation does + Show Spoiler +(I believe you will find few wealthy people riots carried out by the wealthy people themselves, whereas you will find people in poverty rioting frequently throughout history, I don't personally have this data handy but I'm confident it's out there)
Another way to say that is (sorry I don't know European geography well) if you live in a shithole apartment in Baltimore, you're statistically far more likely to riot than if you live in a mansion in Beverly Hills.
|
Thanks for the explanation GreenHorizon. I now understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not sure if I agree though. How to prove that only exploited people riot? What do you consider to be exploitation in this context?
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](https://bilder.bild.de/fotos-skaliert/nicht-nur-molotowcocktails-sondern-auch-wurfgeschosse-werfen-die-demonstranten-auf-die-polizeibeamte-200367356-51542444/3,w=993,q=high,c=0.bild.jpg)
EPT
