U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers

[DeadFish]

I probably interpret left/right distinctions through Haidt's moral foundations theory more often than I should, but it does seem to explain a lot. Conservatives, unlike liberals, consider authority to be a source of moral authority; it's intrinsically good to obey authority. This also predicts propensity for violence. In a functioning society, there is a social contract in which the people cede the right to commit violence to the government, and the government agrees to use violence only in a lawful manner. Conservatives might not be happy with the government, they might want to disengage with it entirely, but they acknowledge the moral force inherent in authority and usually fulfill their part in this social contract. Liberals don't particularly care about authority, it's a useful tool but not a moral force in itself, so this contract is lightly thrown aside.

This moral attachment to authority is why right-wing extremists imagine the government isn't really the legitimate government, it's ZOG or admiralty courts or reptilians, and they usually self-isolate innawoods to avoid engaging with that authority. Direct action is limited to lone wolves and small groups. The left has a much lower barrier to anti-authority violence. It's much easier to recruit leftists to engage in violence against the government. T

hat's why we have hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing terrorists active in 2020, while recent right-wing terrorism is limited to, I think, a soi-disant Proud Boy maybe punching someone.

Not true.

The right (as of now) is big on questionin authority. The left demands to be obeyed without question

 

[AnOminous]

Silver linings aside, that kind of scale makes them nearly impossible to regulate, on a basic logistical level. Google News' algorithm for the riots has been absolute shit for the last 100+ days, and there's almost no regulation you can think of that would fix it.

It's honestly more useful to read this fucking thread, and this thread is a shitpile. Fuck you Google.

 

[pwnest injun]

Not true.

The right (as of now) is big on questionin authority. The left demands to be obeyed without question

You're missing the point. His assertion is that they don't question the concept of authority, only the legitimacy of specific authorities.

 

[TheClappening]

It's honestly more useful to read this fucking thread, and this thread is a shitpile. Fuck you Google.

I'm just here for the funny video clips.

 

[derpherp2]

Depends on how you define peaceful. I wouldn't consider screaming at people "peaceful", but the left does.

Also how they defined protest.
This could be a "school shooting" scenario all over again where they just lump together two people yelling angrily and waving their arms around as a 'protest.'

 

[irishAzoth]

Antifa went to a new location tonight and got lost and confused about which building to destroy.

View attachment 1641758View attachment 1641761

antifa....time to pack it up, it was a good run
time to go home and rest up for election night. This was so pathetic even for portland antifa standards

 

[moocow]

Like 90% of these instances of "police brutality" could have been avoided if the "victims" didn't resist arrest or attempt to block police from arresting someone else.

It amazes me that they're actually trying this "de-arresting" thing with American cops. Especially when they're up against so many cops. That's a fast way for a dozen people to get arrested all at once. These cops are displaying incredible restraint by not just unloading on these shitheads.

The NYT admits what we have all known and said for months. Antifa/“insurrectionary anarchists” exist, they are organized, and the riots were not spontaneous expressions of anger.
View attachment 1640744
View attachment 1640746
View attachment 1640745
Archive

Ah, here comes the damage control, trying to reel this all back in and get their lackeys under control again before the election. I wonder if their off-the-leash agitators will willingly back off now that they've gone off the deep end...

 

[JohnDoe]

You're missing the point. His assertion is that they don't question the concept of authority, only the legitimacy of specific authorities.

I thought it is important to note that, generally, the dichotomy between the left/right comes down to emotionality/logic, short/long time preference, and hierarchical/egotist structuring.

Which is why when the radial left experience any discomfort the first reaction is to rally a mob and attempt to destroy everything that doesn't cater to their emotions and ego immediately.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Ah, here comes the damage control, trying to reel this all back in and get their lackeys under control again before the election. I wonder if their off-the-leash agitators will willingly back off now that they've gone off the deep end...

Nothing, absolutely nothing, would make me happier than to see the radical left suddenly lose systemic support. Charges being filed (up to and including the bullshit ones they like to put on righties that step out of line), software censorship fuckery blocking them from outreach on social media, Mastercard declaring them terrorists unilaterally and blocking them from ever owning anything again, the works.

 

[DeadFish]

If I were blm and antifa I would start picking scape goats to offer up to the feds. Then make a PR campaign about how the violence was because of those scapegoated losers. Antifa not about violence at all. No sir. They do this and they might get to keep Portland and rest of pacific northwest. Then work to offer free concerts to the public to smooth things over.

Cause having a city as an enclave all to yourself in America is a victory for any revolutionary group.

Of course they could have kept all the control of these areas if they kept a low profile and did nothing to draw negative attention. Like rioting

 

[Kiyoshi's Wristbrace]

View attachment 1617368
View attachment 1617371
Sickest fucker I have ever seen in my life

This explains VH1's current behavior, and why I have quit watching it 100% too.

 

[The Demon]

"Oh so we had to pay $10 million for breaking the law? Joke's on you, we made a billion breaking it."

But that same $10 million is a death penalty to nearly anyone else.

I think that whole ireland subway case speaks for itself. They couldn't give a shit about workers rights or health nutrition, they just want to tax the bread higher and make a quick buck.

 

[DeadFish]

I backed them on fighting the Spanish court's ruling that they had to pay newspapers just to post a link to their stories. It was an absurd interpretation of how the Internet works. I was glad Google was a big enough behemoth to say "no thanks, get fucked" and crash the entire Spanish news industry.

Silver linings aside, that kind of scale makes them nearly impossible to regulate, on a basic logistical level. Google News' algorithm for the riots has been absolute shit for the last 100+ days, and there's almost no regulation you can think of that would fix it.

We will see robo judges to issues orders on how to deal with this stuff

 

[Harvey Danger]

It's honestly more useful to read this fucking thread, and this thread is a shitpile. Fuck you Google.

Null's broken-ass Highlights feature, which sometimes requires a manual reboot from his cave in Serbia, delivers better information than the news algorithm of a trillion dollar company.

 

[LaxerBRO]

View attachment 1617368
View attachment 1617371
Sickest fucker I have ever seen in my life

Lee Boyd Malvo.
Daniel Shaver
Kelly Thomas

Christ, one of the guys was killed by paramedics. Additionally, if this bitch wants to bring up Breonna Taylor, let's bring up Vicki Weaver.

I feel like I am watching the world go crazy. They latch on to a story who's flames has been flamed by the press and social media, more details emerge but by then nobody cares about the original person that was killed. They just move on.

If people think police are too quick on the gun, fine.

 

[JohnnyG]

I probably interpret left/right distinctions through Haidt's moral foundations theory more often than I should, but it does seem to explain a lot. Conservatives, unlike liberals, consider authority to be a source of moral authority; it's intrinsically good to obey authority. This also predicts propensity for violence. In a functioning society, there is a social contract in which the people cede the right to commit violence to the government, and the government agrees to use violence only in a lawful manner. Conservatives might not be happy with the government, they might want to disengage with it entirely, but they acknowledge the moral force inherent in authority and usually fulfill their part in this social contract. Liberals don't particularly care about authority, it's a useful tool but not a moral force in itself, so this contract is lightly thrown aside.

This moral attachment to authority is why right-wing extremists imagine the government isn't really the legitimate government, it's ZOG or admiralty courts or reptilians, and they usually self-isolate innawoods to avoid engaging with that authority. Direct action is limited to lone wolves and small groups. The left has a much lower barrier to anti-authority violence. It's much easier to recruit leftists to engage in violence against the government. That's why we have hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing terrorists active in 2020, while recent right-wing terrorism is limited to, I think, a soi-disant Proud Boy maybe punching someone.

Not true.

The right (as of now) is big on questionin authority. The left demands to be obeyed without question

You're missing the point. His assertion is that they don't question the concept of authority, only the legitimacy of specific authorities.

There is an AuthLeft as well as a LibRight. I agree that the right tends to view hierarchies and authority as naturally arising, and believes in things like stewardship and servant leadership as a result, while the left tends to view them as random occurrences that fit the oppressor/oppressee and other Marxist-struggle narratives.

But it's silly to claim the left is anti-authoritarian when they've filled every institution and happily use even the slightest hint of power as a weapon against dissidents, from the associate professor of Fake Studies at No Name University trying to get you kicked off campus or fired, to the nurse's aid telling the internet she's unplugging respirators, to the HR danger hair trying to get you banned from the entire internet.

 

[beautiful person]

Eugene: Group of people are camping out in front of a major building on the UO campus. No claims to being with Antifa or BLM, but one of their demands is to defund and eventually disband campus police.

The name they're using for their group was already taken so they literally put a disclaimer on their banner.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201005154506/https://www.kezi.com/content/news/Protestors-572637871.html

 

[Harvey Danger]

There is an AuthLeft as well as a LibRight. I agree that the right tends to view hierarchies and authority as naturally arising, and believes in things like stewardship and servant leadership as a result, while the left tends to view them as random occurrences that fit the oppressor/oppressee and other Marxist-struggle narratives.

But it's silly to claim the left is anti-authoritarian when they've filled every institution and happily use even the slightest hint of power as a weapon against dissidents, from the associate professor of Fake Studies at No Name University trying to get you kicked off campus or fired, to the nurse's aid telling the internet she's unplugging respirators, to the HR danger hair trying to get you banned from the entire internet.

The modern left is anti-hierarchy, while remaining authoritarian. They want mob power, because it can be swayed by slogans (ideology) and used to promote iconoclasts, previously dis-enfranchised people who seize power via popular acclaim (thus skipping the need to climb a hierarchy). Individuals tap into that power by embracing the ideology which enables the mob, and espousing it in their personal lives or jobs.

It's why so many of the mobs we see in this thread start with speeches by randos who get up, tell their life story, drop some jargon, and get applause. Holding the mic/megaphone commands attention, and mob attention is power. They are attempting to achieve leader status via popular acclaim, and if they don't achieve it, then at least they got a taste of power (attention) for free.

The speeches don't matter, they never change anything. Nobody takes them up on their ideas. Nobody follows their suggestions. It's all the left's version of meritocracy: instead of competing among peers to advance up a hierarchy, they recognize only Mob and Leader. The social construct demands that any Mob member may advance directly to Leader, and must be allowed to attempt it.

Beyond that they aren't governed by hierarchical rules, but by ideology which can be bent to match a current emotional state. That state must be held by popular consensus, though, and a lot of BLM "protests" are designed to make sure everyone feels the same way. It's literal mob psychology.

Ultimately, the thing that brings it all down is the Oppression Olympics, or Progressive Stack. It's the stubborn vestige of hierarchy forced on them by the nature of intersectionality, and they can't explicitly drop it without throwing out huge chunks of their progressive ideology as well.

(That's the internal way to bring it down; external factors such as Chad Wolf's feds arresting the whole bunch also work.)

 

[Honest Coyote]

If I were blm and antifa I would start picking scape goats to offer up to the feds. Then make a PR campaign about how the violence was because of those scapegoated losers. Antifa not about violence at all. No sir. They do this and they might get to keep Portland and rest of pacific northwest. Then work to offer free concerts to the public to smooth things over.

Cause having a city as an enclave all to yourself in America is a victory for any revolutionary group.

Of course they could have kept all the control of these areas if they kept a low profile and did nothing to draw negative attention. Like rioting

Normally you'd be right, but you're thinking logically and long-term, not short-term and fanatically.

The mafia can lay low in Vegas because they want money. As long as you give them money or don't interfere with lther money, you're okay. They may not like you personally, but "It's just business". The Mormons want a Mormon state in Utah, and as long as they form a supermajority, they're fine with democracy. As long as you're not overthrowing the LDS president, you're okay. They may not like you, but it's between you and god. Cue something similar for every other group with a geographic hub. There's a win condition, and incremental gains add up longterm. Also, since there's a goal, you can pursue it by multiple means. The mob doesn't need to beat you for the money you owe the casino, they can put a lean on your house with lawyers. The Mormons can convert you. Ethnic immigrants can help network their co-ethnics in their careers.

The radical left has no win condition. The only goal they have is smash things. They throw around buzzwords, but nobody is dumb enough to believe that they honestly care about things. It's also why they purity spiral. The end result of smahing something is you need something new to smash. They're viking raiders without the manliness and sex appeal. The type of person attracted to this philosophy is the kind of person who can't build something. Whatever they produce will be as sad and broke-brain as they are.

 

[DeadFish]

Normally you'd be right, but you're thinking logically and long-term, not short-term and fanatically.

The mafia can lay low in Vegas because they want money. As long as you give them money or don't interfere with lther money, you're okay. They may not like you personally, but "It's just business". The Mormons want a Mormon state in Utah, and as long as they form a supermajority, they're fine with democracy. As long as you're not overthrowing the LDS president, you're okay. They may not like you, but it's between you and god. Cue something similar for every other group with a geographic hub. There's a win condition, and incremental gains add up longterm. Also, since there's a goal, you can pursue it by multiple means. The mob doesn't need to beat you for the money you owe the casino, they can put a lean on your house with lawyers. The Mormons can convert you. Ethnic immigrants can help network their co-ethnics in their careers.

The radical left has no win condition. The only goal they have is smash things. They throw around buzzwords, but nobody is dumb enough to believe that they honestly care about things. It's also why they purity spiral. The end result of smahing something is you need something new to smash. They're viking raiders without the manliness and sex appeal. The type of person attracted to this philosophy is the kind of person who can't build something. Whatever they produce will be as sad and broke-brain as they are.

Once again it depends on their goals.

If they wanted trump out then shutting the fuck up and being quiet would have worked. Trump is his own worst enemy without a heel to rail against.

But they cant do that.

If they want to take over then solidfying their hold over Seattle and Portland would have been the way to go. Having a multi generational strong hold as a base of operations would be a key step to taking over the rest of the nation. Or at least shaping its future. Which would require being discreet.

They cant do that.

If their goal is destruction then that could be achieved by massive fraud and financial crimes with intent of getting the ecomony to implode.

But that requires being quiet and lacks theatrics. So they cant do that.

They have the means to do that. They got the connections and money people. Thousand currents anyone? Its their need for attention that is doing them in