While this is unacceptable, I do think it’s curious that a lot of the news coverage about the riots in France has been about those relatively small stories where the rioters look to be completely in the wrong.
These riots are the product of understandable and logical frustrations with French police (and local police more broadly, looking at riots in Brussels), yet most news stories about it are things like this or almost non stories about the rioters also being aggressive towards journalists.
Is vandalism of holocaust memorials acceptable? No. Should fringe stories like that be the focus of riots that are fundamentally about something completely different? No as well, in my opinion. And I’m kind of wary that it does seem like the coverage is going to unfold like that.
But what else is there? The riots are violent by nature, these are not peaceful demonstrations. And incidents like this show how violence goes in the worst directions. That these riots spread to Brussels is even more absurd.
I’m all for people protesting and defending an political position, violence might even be excused or justified. But this “spontaneous” riots, this n’importe quoi violence is a disaster, there’s no agenda, no strategy, no nothing and in the end Le Pen will be the one pocketing gains from this. This is really a disaster and police violence will only more likely increase.
That these riots spread to Brussels is even more absurd
No it’s not. The police in Brussels have long had problems with racism in their ranks (and the behaviour that comes with that), so it makes a lot of sense that this struck a nerve with a lot of people in Brussels
Also, on the riots having no direction or clear goal: fucking duh, they’re riots. But as MLK put it: “A riot is the language of the unheard.” These communities often have to take it on the chin until it reaches a breaking point, and then stuff like this happens. Does that mean it’s entirely excusable? Not necessarily. But it does mean you’re missing the point when spouting platitudes about this not being the most effective method of activism. You’re complaining that boiling water can’t properly canalise itself, because you’re imagining that’s what you would do in all your wisdom.
I don’t think it is a platitude to expect people to act in a rational and non violent way (I actually consider that to be the bare minimum expected from anyone). This is irrational violence and it’s inexcusable (your platitudes do not excuse it) and the result is simple, political forces promising more power to the police will become stronger because most people don’t buy those platitudes of yours nor this absurd violence that destroys monuments in honor of Shoa victims or entire libraries.
…of course it’s not the politically optimal move, but it’s still understandable. You just sound like a sheltered wanker who’s trying his best to deliberately not understand how riots come to be so you can completely dismiss where the rioters are coming from.
Oh right, according to you they’re coming from the segregated communities of southern US in the 60s, wasn’t it that your totally not abusive comparison?
I think the one who sounds like a sheltered/spoiled guy here it’s you. Clearly you don’t fear being a direct or indirect victim of these riots. I fear both.
While this is unacceptable, I do think it’s curious that a lot of the news coverage about the riots in France has been about those relatively small stories where the rioters look to be completely in the wrong.
These riots are the product of understandable and logical frustrations with French police (and local police more broadly, looking at riots in Brussels), yet most news stories about it are things like this or almost non stories about the rioters also being aggressive towards journalists.
Is vandalism of holocaust memorials acceptable? No. Should fringe stories like that be the focus of riots that are fundamentally about something completely different? No as well, in my opinion. And I’m kind of wary that it does seem like the coverage is going to unfold like that.
But what else is there? The riots are violent by nature, these are not peaceful demonstrations. And incidents like this show how violence goes in the worst directions. That these riots spread to Brussels is even more absurd.
I’m all for people protesting and defending an political position, violence might even be excused or justified. But this “spontaneous” riots, this n’importe quoi violence is a disaster, there’s no agenda, no strategy, no nothing and in the end Le Pen will be the one pocketing gains from this. This is really a disaster and police violence will only more likely increase.
PS: In Metz a library was burnt down to the ground, these are very stupid levels of violence.
No it’s not. The police in Brussels have long had problems with racism in their ranks (and the behaviour that comes with that), so it makes a lot of sense that this struck a nerve with a lot of people in Brussels
Also, on the riots having no direction or clear goal: fucking duh, they’re riots. But as MLK put it: “A riot is the language of the unheard.” These communities often have to take it on the chin until it reaches a breaking point, and then stuff like this happens. Does that mean it’s entirely excusable? Not necessarily. But it does mean you’re missing the point when spouting platitudes about this not being the most effective method of activism. You’re complaining that boiling water can’t properly canalise itself, because you’re imagining that’s what you would do in all your wisdom.
I don’t think it is a platitude to expect people to act in a rational and non violent way (I actually consider that to be the bare minimum expected from anyone). This is irrational violence and it’s inexcusable (your platitudes do not excuse it) and the result is simple, political forces promising more power to the police will become stronger because most people don’t buy those platitudes of yours nor this absurd violence that destroys monuments in honor of Shoa victims or entire libraries.
…of course it’s not the politically optimal move, but it’s still understandable. You just sound like a sheltered wanker who’s trying his best to deliberately not understand how riots come to be so you can completely dismiss where the rioters are coming from.
Oh right, according to you they’re coming from the segregated communities of southern US in the 60s, wasn’t it that your totally not abusive comparison?
I think the one who sounds like a sheltered/spoiled guy here it’s you. Clearly you don’t fear being a direct or indirect victim of these riots. I fear both.
What the fuck are you on about? You have to be being dense on purpose now.
Says the guy that called me a wanker from the confort of his shelter
What does that have to do with anything?