|
I think the point perhaps that the Professor is making that these riots are happening because of the current huge divide between the wealthy and the poor. I think studies have shown this to be the case historically in say the 20's the wealthest people did not have the percentage of wealth greater than the poor like it is now. So this would be a reason for protests and perhaps why these riots have happened and that these might be a cataylst for change of something that needs to change.
On the other hand Aubrey and Shifty and others feel this event is an excuse for people to go out and hurt others and burn, steal, loot and otherwise cause havoc. They are upset upset that these groups of people have done such things and that they are not truly wanting to effect change but rather tlooking out for themselves.
Now if I am right and I am certian someone will tell me if I am not, when this first begin their were protests, peaceful protests which I think is the best way to set about for change. I think Martin Luther King and Gahndi both proved this to be correct that peaceful change is entirely possible and has been some of the most successful means of change we have seen in the last 50 years or so.
When these groups who have been rioting and causing all this damage look back on what happened will it be seen as a succesful means of protest and change? Or will it be looked upon as unsuccessful? Just a thought.
|
Bleh. Just watched a youtube clip where some disenfranchised girl said how cool it was to have free wine at 9 in the morning, and that by taking and drinking it she was sticking it to the rich. The rich being "people wiv shops an' that."
Yeah. When I think of "The Rich" I immediately think of the shopkeepers of Clapham High Street.
She'd been drinking all night, of course she's going to talk incoherent rubbish!
|
|
I think the point perhaps that the Professor is making that these riots are happening because of the current huge divide between the wealthy and the poor. I think studies have shown this to be the case historically in say the 20's the wealthest people did not have the percentage of wealth greater than the poor like it is now. So this would be a reason for protests and perhaps why these riots have happened and that these might be a cataylst for change of something that needs to change.
On the other hand Aubrey and Shifty and others feel this event is an excuse for people to go out and hurt others and burn, steal, loot and otherwise cause havoc. They are upset upset that these groups of people have done such things and that they are not truly wanting to effect change but rather tlooking out for themselves.
Paragraphs one and two are not incompatible.
I've yet to call the rioters utterly blameless.
Trust me, I've noticed. Then again, I'm a fellow "bleeding heart."
No one is saying what these people are doing is OK. It isn't. They need to be held responsible. But the idea that they're all just bad, bad people is ridiculous, and is a clear case of binary thinking. Person X is either a criminal, or he isn't -- period. Ludicrous.
Though I suppose the world is simpler in black and white...
This video clip is pretty cool. I wish they had man in the street interviews like this in America.
|
I think the point perhaps that the Professor is making that these riots are happening because of the current huge divide between the wealthy and the poor. I think studies have shown this to be the case historically in say the 20's the wealthest people did not have the percentage of wealth greater than the poor like it is now. So this would be a reason for protests and perhaps why these riots have happened and that these might be a cataylst for change of something that needs to change.
On the other hand Aubrey and Shifty and others feel this event is an excuse for people to go out and hurt others and burn, steal, loot and otherwise cause havoc. They are upset upset that these groups of people have done such things and that they are not truly wanting to effect change but rather looking out for themselves.
Now if I am right and I am certian someone will tell me if I am not, when this first begin their were protests, peaceful protests which I think is the best way to set about for change. I think Martin Luther King and Gahndi both proved this to be correct that peaceful change is entirely possible and has been some of the most successful means of change we have seen in the last 50 years or so.
When these groups who have been rioting and causing all this damage look back on what happened will it be seen as a succesful means of protest and change? Or will it be looked upon as unsuccessful? Just a thought.
My view is correctly reported above. However, my view differs from Shifty's in that he seems to characterise the problem as a defect in individual morals. While, this is true, I consider that there are broader social issues in the areas where some of these riots took place that are, for want of a better term, morally corrosive and lead to disaffection and social breakdown. While I still consider that the individuals who are rioting are just in it largely for lulz, are individually responsible and should be dealt with through due legal process, dealing with the broader issues would be a benefit to society (and the individuals affected by both the rioting and indeed taking part in it) if it reduces the propensity for this sort of thing to happen.
|
|
Paragraphs one and two are not incompatible.I think the point perhaps that the Professor is making that these riots are happening because of the current huge divide between the wealthy and the poor. I think studies have shown this to be the case historically in say the 20's the wealthest people did not have the percentage of wealth greater than the poor like it is now. So this would be a reason for protests and perhaps why these riots have happened and that these might be a cataylst for change of something that needs to change.
On the other hand Aubrey and Shifty and others feel this event is an excuse for people to go out and hurt others and burn, steal, loot and otherwise cause havoc. They are upset upset that these groups of people have done such things and that they are not truly wanting to effect change but rather tlooking out for themselves.
Exactly my point. I don't think the two sides are so far from one another.
I'm surprised this hasn't happened here in the U.S.
Yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who goes "Oh get s job :smug:" to a group of poverty stricken minorities in most cases, much less the current global economy, has given up the right to claim they're using "logic."
Couldn't disagree more. Riots in London are what you get when you combine an engineered entitlement class, and then justify drugs and generational poverty as a side-affect fo the man getting people down. If policies favor growth and create jobs, and if there are precious few alternatives to working, people don't have time for this rioting nonsense. Why am I not rioting? I have kids to feed, a job to do and a book to write.
Anyone who uses the death of a drug dealer in a shootout with police as an excuse to riot is not thinking soundly. Anyone who uses "I can't" as a reason to accept government money and train up their families into government dependency forfeits their right to talk about how hard or unfair life can be. Work. Pay your bills. Be determined. Some things suck, but it's no one's job but yours to upll yourself out. And it you struggle and someone offers to help you, take it humbly and resolve to help someone else one day when you're whole. "Gimme" or "but it's not fair" is not a plan for life.
No one is saying what these people are doing is OK. It isn't. They need to be held responsible. But the idea that they're all just bad, bad people is ridiculous, and is a clear case of binary thinking. Person X is either a criminal, or he isn't -- period. Ludicrous.
Bugley Bro - are you saying that someone smashing in windows or setting cars on fire is not a bad person? It's exactly that black and white - if there's no legitimate reason to "riot", then don't do it. If you do it, you're wrong and that's it. If you go to jail or get shot it's entirely your choosing. How many people have a gun placed to their head with the restuling command to "go throw a Molotov cocktail or else"?
|
|
I'm surprised this hasn't happened here in the U.S.
Yet.
Here is one who hopes it does not happen. We have had these sort of things previously on a smaller scale, Rodney King Riots and then earlier Watts Riots and the like. But I for one hope that a more peaceful and sensible protests happen not these riots which cause more harm then good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bugley Bro - are you saying that someone smashing in windows or setting cars on fire is not a bad person? It's exactly that black and white - if there's no legitimate reason to "riot", then don't do it. If you do it, you're wrong and that's it. If you go to jail or get shot it's entirely your choosing. How many people have a gun placed to their head with the restuling command to "go throw a Molotov cocktail or else"?
If history has taught me anything, it is that under certain circumstances, the vast, vast majority of people will do contemptible things. So no, I do not believe that someone who smashes a window is necessarily a "bad person." Some of them are likely sociopaths looking for an excuse. Others are almost certainly no more amoral than you or I, and made a very bad decision, possibly driven partially by systemic injustice. I have no idea what their individual circumstances are. I'M NOT SAYING WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS OK -- merely that sorting people into "good" and "bad" buckets is a gross oversimplification, and that when this is all said and done, we would be well served by figuring out why the riots happened, rather than just writing it off as a bunch of "bad people."
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'm surprised this hasn't happened here in the U.S.
Yet.
Just wait. It's coming. I'm almost certain of it.
Plus, over here the average citizen has ready access to firearms and every single police officer carries a loaded automatic pistol. It's going to be ugly, mark my words, and the riots over here will make the recent Vancouver and London riots look like carnivals by comparison.
With all the issues going on with the debt ceiling crisis, the impending presidential elections (which, let's face it folks, no way in hell Obama's going to get a second term), and the unemployment trends.... yeah, there's pretty much no way this is going to end well.
...let's face it folks, no way in hell Obama's going to get a second term.
I'm inclined to agree...it's the economy, stupid. However, given some of the GOP hopefuls, I hold out hope that the Republicans nominate someone unelectable. Assuming there is such a thing any more. After all, desperation often opens the door for authoritarians to seize control.
|
...let's face it folks, no way in hell Obama's going to get a second term.I'm inclined to agree...it's the economy, stupid. However, given some of the GOP hopefuls, I hold out hope that the Republicans nominate someone unelectable. Assuming there is such a thing any more. After all, desperation often opens the door for authoritarians to seize control.
How about we just hope for the Dems to nominate a non-Obama?
How about we just hope for the Dems to nominate a non-Obama?
I believe that is unlikely.
|
How about we just hope for the Dems to nominate a non-Obama?...let's face it folks, no way in hell Obama's going to get a second term.I'm inclined to agree...it's the economy, stupid. However, given some of the GOP hopefuls, I hold out hope that the Republicans nominate someone unelectable. Assuming there is such a thing any more. After all, desperation often opens the door for authoritarians to seize control.
Not going to happen. You see how the media attacks conservatives, what do you think they would do to a traitor in there own party. I wonder if the would call him racist or terrorist.
|
|
I'm surprised this hasn't happened here in the U.S.
Yet.
Just wait. It's coming. I'm almost certain of it.
Plus, over here the average citizen has ready access to firearms and every single police officer carries a loaded automatic pistol. It's going to be ugly, mark my words, and the riots over here will make the recent Vancouver and London riots look like carnivals by comparison.
With all the issues going on with the debt ceiling crisis, the impending presidential elections (which, let's face it folks, no way in hell Obama's going to get a second term), and the unemployment trends.... yeah, there's pretty much no way this is going to end well.
We had something like this: The LA riots. Only difference is that the shop owners who had guns didn't get their shops destroyed.
I wonder if the would call him racist or terrorist.
Why not? Everyone else does. :P
Seeing news on the people, especially children starving in Somalia, kind of makes these issues seem pretty shallow.
I've often heard how the difference between the poor and rich in 1st world countries is growing. I wonder, how is the gap between 1st world poor and 3rd world poor being effected? Is it growing or getting smaller? Are 1st world poor getting closer to 3rd world poor?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, there are regular riots in the UK, so all this apocalyptic international b!%!%+!s is just that (sorry, Fatey). We had the Bradford riots a few years ago. We had Broadwater Farm. We had the Brixton riots. And there were riots before them too. And the French have them too quite a lot (despite their high taxing, dirigiste model of the state). I don't remember there being sweeping international riots after any of them, and I don't remeber any riots overseas having much of an impact here. So perhaps a bit of reality would be welcome here. This is a local event, with local roots.
In any case, there are regular riots in the UK, so all this apocalyptic international b%+$@#%s is just that (sorry, Fatey). We had the Bradford riots a few years ago. We had Broadwater Farm. We had the Brixton riots. And there were riots before them too. And the French have them too quite a lot (despite their high taxing, dirigiste model of the state). I don't remember there being sweeping international riots after any of them, and I don't remeber any riots overseas having much of an impact here. So perhaps a bit of reality would be welcome here. This is a local event, with local roots.
I agree with what someone said, these were inevitable. Not because of socioeconomic conditions, but just because we are humans. Murder, rape, assault, thievery, and riots will always occur. We might reduce the number, but these things will still happen on occasion.
Seeing news on the people, especially children starving in Somalia, kind of makes these issues seem pretty shallow.
Have you read any of the comments on some of those stories? The ones on CNN.com actually include people writing things like "move out of the desert!" or "get a job!"
Sick.
|
|
In any case, there are regular riots in the UK, so all this apocalyptic international b#*!&~%s is just that (sorry, Fatey). We had the Bradford riots a few years ago. We had Broadwater Farm. We had the Brixton riots. And there were riots before them too. And the French have them too quite a lot (despite their high taxing, dirigiste model of the state). I don't remember there being sweeping international riots after any of them, and I don't remeber any riots overseas having much of an impact here. So perhaps a bit of reality would be welcome here. This is a local event, with local roots.
Not to mention our waaayyyy more generous social and unemployment welfare.
Seeing news on the people, especially children starving in Somalia, kind of makes these issues seem pretty shallow.Have you read any of the comments on some of those stories? The ones on CNN.com actually include people writing things like "move out of the desert!" or "get a job!"
Sick.
I don't usually bother to read comments on news sites.
|
|
Here is one who hopes it does not happen. We have had these sort of things previously on a smaller scale, Rodney King Riots and then earlier Watts Riots and the like. But I for one hope that a more peaceful and sensible protests happen not these riots which cause more harm then good.I'm surprised this hasn't happened here in the U.S.
Yet.
What would you do to stop it from happening? Look the other way while Cops gun down the disposessed majority in the streets? Or Charge the idiots in government with Treason and shoot them for their corporate favouritism and contempt for ethics?
|
|
In any case, there are regular riots in the UK, so all this apocalyptic international b#*!&~%s is just that (sorry, Fatey). We had the Bradford riots a few years ago. We had Broadwater Farm. We had the Brixton riots. And there were riots before them too. And the French have them too quite a lot (despite their high taxing, dirigiste model of the state). I don't remember there being sweeping international riots after any of them, and I don't remeber any riots overseas having much of an impact here. So perhaps a bit of reality would be welcome here. This is a local event, with local roots.Not to mention our waaayyyy more generous social and unemployment welfare.
For less than what the USA has run up as a 15 trillion dollar debt, It could have spent ten thousand dollars per family member to give every family a one acre farm plot and a house built using Cargo Containers. providing up to a billion citizens with homes allowing them resources to grow their own food. A single commercial/governmental highrise at the centre of each square mile, and a ring wall of industrial, commercial, and other collectivly benificial structures.
|
|
For less than what the USA has run up as a 15 trillion dollar debt, It could have spent ten thousand dollars per family member to give every family a one acre farm plot and a house built using Cargo Containers. providing up to a billion citizens with homes allowing them resources to grow their own food. A single commercial/governmental highrise at the centre of each square mile, and a ring wall of industrial, commercial, and other collectivly benificial structures.In any case, there are regular riots in the UK, so all this apocalyptic international b#*!&~%s is just that (sorry, Fatey). We had the Bradford riots a few years ago. We had Broadwater Farm. We had the Brixton riots. And there were riots before them too. And the French have them too quite a lot (despite their high taxing, dirigiste model of the state). I don't remember there being sweeping international riots after any of them, and I don't remeber any riots overseas having much of an impact here. So perhaps a bit of reality would be welcome here. This is a local event, with local roots.Not to mention our waaayyyy more generous social and unemployment welfare.
One acre is not that much to grow food on. Better make it two acres. Also, every citizen gets a hen and a rooster or a buck and a doe (rabbit).
Of course, some people would just grow pot on their land.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No justice, no peace.
All that "Stop and Frisk" criminal police activity causing blow-back. Wielding the "Sword of Justice" to harass minorities and the young tends to sour people against those who would claim to be their overseers.
Too bad the people getting hurt the most by the riots are probably the ones getting victimized by the police.
There are some interesting views and figures in this. Warning - not from the Guardian.
I'm not seeing the figures.
He's simply stating that "spending is rising" without saying what it's being spent on.
He's trying to allude that oh noes nanny state, but the fact is, you've got widespread austerity measures and a big spike in the VAT (which overwhelmingly targets lower classes).
Oh wait, there was also a huge decrease in corporate taxes.
See, I don't get this idea of "we need to give more power to the corporations." We do! We give them incredible power and tax relief. We've been giving it to them since the 80's. This is what it's lead to. This rhetoric isn't anything new. "We need to cut social services. We need to lower taxes for corporations. We need to protect the 'job creators.' We need to let the poor pull themselves up and not give help." You're acting like this is a new thing. We've been hearing it for thirty years now. At what point do you admit that austerity and powerful corporations and increasingly rising wage gap doesn't work?
For all of those claiming "Oh just get a job," here's some numbers for you. There's 54 unemployed people for every 1 opening in Tottenham. The jobs don't exist.
To some extent this has already happened in the US;
LA riots for example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just noticed Aubrey's link says "the solution is to be more like the US and their police."
You know, the US police force that regularly commits crimes, robberies, murders, harasses the innocent, and overwhelmingly abuses their power.
Yep. That sure sounds like a great solution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need to stop stacking the deck against small businesses - they have historically been what has pulled America out of recession. But they are severely hurt by the credit crunch which the nanny state created.
LOL WUT.
Small businesses thrive when there's a powerful safety net. People afraid of losing their house and livelyhood to drop into poverty aren't going to invest in themselves and open their own store.
You look at America, the more powerful our social safety net, the more Americans worked for themselves. That number started plummeting in the 80's when Reagan declared big business everyone's friend. Consequently, the credit crunch was caused - and is still BEING caused - by an immense build-up of wealth in the highest class followed by an immense downturn of wealth amongst both lower and middle classes.
You are literally saying the opposite of what is true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? The messageboard's Culture Warriors are picking London as their new battlefield of choice?
Here's a view from the coalface that offers more then just simple soundbites.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need to stop stacking the deck against small businesses - they have historically been what has pulled America out of recession. But they are severely hurt by the credit crunch which the nanny state created.
As someone who works for a family owned small business and is intimately familiar with the workings of such animals, I'd just like to point out that this is 100% the opposite of my experience.
If you think credit is what small businesses need, then you really don't understand how an economy works. My family's business has excellent credit can borrow far more than we need - what we don't have is demand. We're staying afloat, but its lean and until people start buying again we have no reason to expand our operations.
You want to help small businesses? Invest in infrastructure. Put a bunch of people back to work building bridges, highways and high speed rail over the Rockies. All of the money has accumulated at the top, and the top can't spend it fast enough to keep the economy going. There needs to be a huge transfusion of wealth into the working class so that they can buy things so that small businesses like my family's can sell things so that we can expand production and hire more people.
I said literally -nothing- about whether small business thrives or not in regards to the strength of the social net. One of the issues I was sort of alluding to is the ton of regulations the federal government piles on business (many of which make no sense and raise the barrier to entry for small business). But I never implied that the only way to provide a strong social net is to clog up the market with a tangle of regulations.
In twenty years of business, we haven't once encountered one of these so called onerous regulations. I'd love an example of one of these horribly onerous examples.
In fact, the only time our business has had an issue with government regulations, it was over some large rocks we installed along the perimeter of the law to keep people from parking on it (no sidewalk or curb). The city said we couldn't, but our lawyer sent them an angry letter and suddenly we had a waiver.
At our operation we have a 28 ton press that is almost completely unregulated. We had to have a state qualified electrician install the power converter to kick it up to 220, but its not like we were ever considering hiring some unqualified schmuck to install something that could set the building on fire.
The only other regulation I can recall us dealing with is we can't dump some of the paint and grime strippers we use in the sewers, because they're technically acids. We have to bring them to a special transfer station (it's about 15 blocks away), and there's no cost involved. Onerous!
Government regulations surely do keep some operators out of the market. Mostly its the operators who would reduce costs by increasing externalities like pollution and worker injury. We don't actually want those people in the market.
We need to stop stacking the deck against small businesses - they have historically been what has pulled America out of recession. But they are severely hurt by the credit crunch which the nanny state created.As someone who works for a family owned small business and is intimately familiar with the workings of such animals, I'd just like to point out that this is 100% the opposite of my experience.
If you think credit is what small businesses need, then you really don't understand how an economy works. My family's business has excellent credit can borrow far more than we need - what we don't have is demand. We're staying afloat, but its lean and until people start buying again we have no reason to expand our operations.
You want to help small businesses? Invest in infrastructure. Put a bunch of people back to work building bridges, highways and high speed rail over the Rockies. All of the money has accumulated at the top, and the top can't spend it fast enough to keep the economy going. There needs to be a huge transfusion of wealth into the working class so that they can buy things so that small businesses like my family's can sell things so that we can expand production and hire more people.
Gailbraithe, we agree on something? How the hell did that happen. I guarentee you we disagree on why people arent buying anymore, though.
Having, myself, come from an economically disenfranchised background, my high school having poorly prepared me for college, and being a member of a minority group facing severe levels of discrimination, ...
I await the cries of disbelief and the denouncement of you as a liar, like the pleasant reception I recieved when stating a similar pedigree.
I note the graceless and gormless trollbreath still hasn't had the decency to retract their horrible and disgusting remarks.
If you want to invest in infrastructure because we need it (bridges collapsing, roads undrivable, etc), I'm all behind that. But using infrastructure as a means of increasing the labor force or getting money moving, I have to disagree. During the Great Depression, I'm sure it worked well enough, but nowadays, you don't have 800 guys working to build a project by hand, instead you have 8 guys running machines. You now get the average cost of a job created by such things as $200,000 per job. Because all the money is going into largely expensive projects, but not into large individual salaries or large numbers of smaller salaries.
If you want to get people jobs and increase spending, then screw infrastructure. Instead hire 10 times as many people to do menial labor jobs at $20,000 a year pay.