that statement is in contrast to Project C already having an effect in 1963. even acknowledged by JFK who was dead by Selma. whites only signs were removed and social programs with black leadership were being created to bolster black jobs.

the battle wasn't won with Project C in 1963, but to suggest boldly that we wouldnt have gotten change without violence in response to violence is speculation at best with counterproof on the table.

Rights are something to be spoken about among equals. You can't speak about rights unless you're able to take them from others. Being able to take rights is the criterion for having rights. They are not given by society, by a population, by the social contract.

The strong do what they will and the weak endure what they must.

Can you magine a peaceful American revolution with pacifist fore fathers?

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 4 2020 05:59am

equality is a relative term, you and i can be equals in arms and strength or we can have equal empathy for eachother. both work, one causes resentment and strife more than the other. facts remain that firehoses turned on children and police dogs tearing down women had an incredible effect. nothing about anything ive said suggests violence doesnt work, im arguing against peoople many of them famous with an influential platform that say violence is needed. we as a race of humans are supposed to be moving away from violence, not endorsing an america where insurgencies force the powers that be to do their will at the barrel of a gun.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 4 2020 06:02am

Pathetic indeed.

And their article doesn't even take into account that all across the globe, the majority of crime, and violent crime in particular, is perpetrated by young males - meaning that in an aging society, one has to expect a certain baseline decline in crime rates to begin with. Stagnation is failure in this context. That's the type of clever, wonky argument I would expect from a site like 538, but they've been increasing their volume of blatantly partisan articles in recent months. It's almost palpable how some of their more liberal writers feel like dont have to hold back anymore.

Seen a similar spin piece from the BBC.

They showed a trend line going back like 20 years as 'proof' that crime is actually dropping. Then they highlighted that certain violent crimes that have dropped in 2020 (pretty much because large parts of the society was on lock down but they don't mention that) and basically ignored murders spiking i most large metros. Check out their last few sentences on why they think murder has gone parabolic. 'Crime rises in the summer!' Yeah no shit you dishonest fucks but what's your explanation from deviation from the typical baseline summer bump?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53525440

Protests on behalf of an oppressed minority walk on a really thin line when it comes to violence. It's very easy for them to overplay their hand and turn the opinion of the majority against them. It's basically what happened in 1968 and allowed Nixon to win.
I would even argue that the George Floyd protests at some point came really close.

In an alternate universe where there was no once-in-a-century pandemic and recession going on at the same time, it's well possible that the violence and destruction in the wake of the George Floyd protests might have been the factor that pushed Trump across the finish line and allowed him to narrowly win reelection. The more I think about it, the Floyd protests seemed to gain momentum every time law enforcement reacted with violence against (mostly) peaceful protesters, and it seemed to run out of steam when looting and violence didnt stop even weeks later (when the 'just pent up frustration'-excuse was no longer plausible).

protests get violent, people then discount the message because of the violence, and then zealots say they are only discounting it because of racism. which is silly. if someone burns their town down because they won/lost/didn't-make-it-to a superbowl no one supports that just because its white people. or any violent protest by white people where property is damaged.

its just a cheap place to pull a race card to maintain tribal loyalty and not call out bad behavior. worse yet to endorse it and revise history to make it work out. it just shows how primal man still is and how much of a facade civilized society is. especially when people can endorse violence of others and not have to engage in it themselves.

ITT: pretending that fearmongering about crime (when in fact rates have been sinking for decades), portraying yourself as 'tough' on it (translation: arresting poor minorities) has not been a staple of republican campaigning for ages. lol.