White People Riot Against French Government, Right Doesn't Lose Its Mind

[iluvatar5150]

You can say the same thing in regards to the left when it comes to black protesting.

Is the left giving a pass to one group of protesters and not another?

 

[super animator]

Is the left giving a pass to one group of protesters and not another?

In all honestly... yes. However I am not interested in bring up that subject matter again, as quite apparent that some poster here simply do not care.

 

[iluvatar5150]

In all honestly... yes. However I am not interested in bring up that subject matter again, as quite apparent that some poster here simply do not care.

To which group is the left not giving a pass? I haven't seen anybody on the left getting too worked up about the yellow vest thing.

 

[super animator]

To which group is the left not giving a pass?

antifa.

 

[iluvatar5150]

antifa.

Huh? I asked which group they were NOT giving a pass to.

From where I sit, it looks like the left is more-or-less giving a pass to all protesters, except for the white supremacists.

 

[super animator]

Huh? I asked which group they were NOT giving a pass to.
From where I sit, it looks like the left is more-or-less giving a pass to all protesters, except for the white supremacists.

Then I must have misread it...
Regardless I am not seeing the point with these line of questioning.

 

[Ana the Ist]

yep

Because I've witnessed people on the right on numerous occasions get hysterical about non-white and/or non-native-born-citizens engaging in protests/riots much less severe than this.

Which you decided must be about "race"....because? That allows you to ignore other sides of those issues by dismissing people as "racist"?

In some cases, (e.g. Ferguson & Baltimore) the protests were only somewhat less severe than Paris.

Only somewhat huh? I didn't look up Ferguson, but I looked at some of the damage of Baltimore...

"Civil unrest continued with at least twenty police officers injured, at least 250 people arrested, 285 to 350 businesses damaged, 150 vehicle fires, 60 structure fires,[13] 27 drugstores looted..."

I'm betting they're fairly comparable.

In others (e.g. Kaepernick, Mizzou), they weren't even close. In others still (e.g. European "no-go zones"), people on the right just made up things to portray non-white non-native-citizens as dangerous.

Who went "hysterical" over Kaepernick? The biggest reaction to his virtue signaling that I saw was "booing". I know the left likes to play up the reaction....but disagreement doesn't equal hysterics.

As for "no go zones"...I don't really follow them as a discussion, so maybe there's a connection between them and these riots I'm not seeing. Regardless, as to their validity, a quick search did turn up this quote from Angela Merkel...

"Earlier this month she admitted the existence of so-called “no-go zones” in Germany, areas said to be dogged by high-levels of crime and where outsiders, including police and other authorities, are unable to enter.

“It means for example that there cannot be any no-go areas, that there cannot be areas where no-one dares to go but there are such places,” she said. “One has to call them by name and do something about it.”

Bolded to help you out. Here's the article...

German interior minister undercuts Merkel, says 'Islam does not belong to Germany'

I tried to get a more liberal source for you, but it seems liberal media has spent years denying these places exist....so they don't seem to be jumping at the chance to admit their error.

When I look at the right's response to the Paris riots vs their response to these other situations, I wonder what about the situations are so different that they could elicit such a different response from the right. The big differences I see between Paris and the rest are that:

Let's pause here for a moment and talk about what you're calling "the right's response". It sounds like you're basing it off the responses of a few conservatives and the racial attitudes you imagine they have. You're then taking this perception and applying it to the right/conservatives in general.

I don't really need to explain the logical flaws in this kind of thinking do I? I'm fairly certain that you know why it's wrong...so the only reason I can imagine that you're making this argument is to mischaracterize the right and avoid addressing their actual positions. It's easier to just call them all racist, right?

Reminds me of a quote from someone I don't remember..."A racist is anyone winning an argument against a liberal."

• The race/ethnicity of the Paris protesters is different (i.e. it's largely similar to that of the American right).
• The politics of the protesters is different (i.e. the American right is largely sympathetic to anti-tax sentiment).

C'mon....there's some rather large differences you're leaving out. These Paris riots are a direct result of a tax...a price increase that hurts the poor and working class the hardest. They have a clear goal, the repeal of this tax, and it's worth pointing out that since they have a clear goal....they achieved it rather quickly. Compared to Baltimore, it's direct political activism compared to racially fueled revenge. In Paris, it's a group of people with a legitimate grievance that they're fighting against. In Baltimore, it's the perception that the police either murdered or grossly mishandled a black boy they arrested and it was racially motivated. They didn't wait for an investigation...they didn't even need evidence it was racially motivated....they didn't have any clear goals to fight for. It's just a bunch of angry people taking it out on their communities.

I think if Baltimore wasn't racial in any way....if the boy was white, and the rioters were white...you'd still see conservatives mainly on the same side of the issue.

It's not so much that I think the right is being motivated by race regarding Paris. Rather, it's more that I think the right was motivated (at least in part) by race in all those other cases, and that motivation is not present here.

And to be clear - any time I say "race" in this thread, I'm using is as a sort of catch-all/shorthand for race, ethnicity, immigrant status, etc.


Is it possible I'm wrong? Sure; anything's possible. I don't quite see how "projecting" would be applicable here, though.

Well let me put it this way....

If you see people protesting, and the narrative they give you is that it's all about race.....that is, the cops are racist, the media is racist, the government is racist....even the system is racist...that's a very one dimensional perspective on any issue. If you buy into that narrative and start to believe it yourself...then there's really only one way to see the people who are on the other side of that issue....they're racists. In other words, it doesn't matter what positions they take, their arguments, or how they present them. You're just going to think that the underlying reason for their positions is their racism.

You end up projecting what your narrative says onto them regardless of what they actually believe or say. If you believe it's all about race/racism....there's effectively nothing they can say that would change your mind.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Which you decided must be about "race"....because? That allows you to ignore other sides of those issues by dismissing people as "racist"?

I think I've discussed enough things with you, and explained myself enough times that I deserve a little more consideration than that, don't you? When have I ever just blindly dismissed people for any reason?

I've been watching the right for decades. When I see them employ a double standard, I start looking for differences between the two groups or situations being treated differently to try to figure out why each gets treated the way they do. I didn't go looking for racism; that was merely one of the better explanations I've been able to come up with.

I've also been fairly careful in this thread (and in others) to point out that I don't think race is the only factor. I think it's one of at least a few, with politics being another big one.

Only somewhat huh? I didn't look up Ferguson, but I looked at some of the damage of Baltimore...

"Civil unrest continued with at least twenty police officers injured, at least 250 people arrested, 285 to 350 businesses damaged, 150 vehicle fires, 60 structure fires,[13] 27 drugstores looted..."

I'm betting they're fairly comparable.

I'm fairly sure that the numbers of people in Paris are a lot larger, and I don't recall there being any deaths in the Baltimore riots. Last I heard, I think Paris was up to 3 deaths.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that Baltimore and Paris are comparable. That still doesn't explain or justify the difference in attitudes.

Who went "hysterical" over Kaepernick? The biggest reaction to his virtue signaling that I saw was "booing". I know the left likes to play up the reaction....but disagreement doesn't equal hysterics.

Then I'm just gonna say you haven't been paying attention. Even Trump's done more than just boo - a lot more. It's been a huge story, particularly on the right. Those links I gave in the OP - swap out "paris" for "kaepernick" and you'll find hundreds of hits on each of their sites (perhaps not on the Twitter links, though - I've edited the OP accordingly).

As for "no go zones"...I don't really follow them as a discussion, so maybe there's a connection between them and these riots I'm not seeing. Regardless, as to their validity, a quick search did turn up this quote from Angela Merkel...

"Earlier this month she admitted the existence of so-called “no-go zones” in Germany, areas said to be dogged by high-levels of crime and where outsiders, including police and other authorities, are unable to enter.

“It means for example that there cannot be any no-go areas, that there cannot be areas where no-one dares to go but there are such places,” she said. “One has to call them by name and do something about it.”

Bolded to help you out. Here's the article...

German interior minister undercuts Merkel, says 'Islam does not belong to Germany'

I tried to get a more liberal source for you, but it seems liberal media has spent years denying these places exist....so they don't seem to be jumping at the chance to admit their error.

The way they're presented in right-wing media, one would get the impression that they're anarchic enclaves where outsiders can't set foot - like that island where that missionary just got killed, but with a gloomier climate.

However, reality is rather more boring than that:
"No-go areas" - Is Germany unsafe? | DW | 20.03.2018

They're just basically areas with higher crime.

Let's pause here for a moment and talk about what you're calling "the right's response". It sounds like you're basing it off the responses of a few conservatives

It's not just a few.

and the racial attitudes you imagine they have.

The perception doesn't arrive out of nowhere, completely unfounded.

You're then taking this perception and applying it to the right/conservatives in general.

I'm applying it to the loudest segments of the right, i.e. the folks who've made a fuss in the past about other protests. I'm also applying it to the right-wing celebrities and politicians to whom these folks look for guidance.

I don't really need to explain the logical flaws in this kind of thinking do I? I'm fairly certain that you know why it's wrong...so the only reason I can imagine that you're making this argument is to mischaracterize the right and avoid addressing their actual positions. It's easier to just call them all racist, right?

No, actually, it's not easier to just call them racist. It's kind of a frustrating pain in the butt. What's easier is asking them to explain their reasoning and then listening to the explanation. If an explanation makes sense (even if I don't agree with it), then I can say "okay" and not question it anymore. Maybe other folks are different, but for me, that takes the least amount of energy.

But after years of asking for reasonable explanations for this disparity and many others, and getting nothing approaching logical or consistent, I've come to the conclusion that many of the disparities and apparent double standards I see on the right aren't driven by ration or logic, but rather by something more primal.

Reminds me of a quote from someone I don't remember..."A racist is anyone winning an argument against a liberal."

Lots of liberals are idiots.

C'mon....there's some rather large differences you're leaving out. These Paris riots are a direct result of a tax...a price increase that hurts the poor and working class the hardest.

That's still political.

They have a clear goal, the repeal of this tax, and it's worth pointing out that since they have a clear goal....they achieved it rather quickly.

That's A goal, and probably the most easily clarified, but it's not the only one:

Galvanized by rising fuel prices, the high cost of living and claims that a disproportionate burden of the government's tax reforms were falling on the working and middle classes[20][21][22] (especially those in rural and peri-urban areas),[6][23]protesters called for the end of such changes and the resignation of the President of France, Emmanuel Macron.

The goals in Baltimore were not unclear, either: stop abusing people.

The problem is that it's a lot easier to suspend a single tax than it is to undo decades of dysfunction.

Compared to Baltimore, it's direct political activism compared to racially fueled revenge.

Oh baloney. Setting cars on fire and trashing the Arc de Triumph over a gas tax is "direct political activism", but setting cars on fire and robbing a CVS because the Baltimore PD is a corrupt, abusive, sometimes-murderous mess is "racially fueled revenge"?

Give me a break. That's the kind of ridiculous double standard I'm talking about.

In Paris, it's a group of people with a legitimate grievance that they're fighting against. In Baltimore, it's the perception that the police either murdered or grossly mishandled a black boy they arrested and it was racially motivated. They didn't wait for an investigation...they didn't even need evidence it was racially motivated....they didn't have any clear goals to fight for. It's just a bunch of angry people taking it out on their communities.

Sorry, but you have to try really hard to pretend that Freddy Grey was just some kind of isolated incident to which people immediately rushed to judgment. This city has been screwed up for a long time.

When cops who patrol my neighborhood IN BALTIMORE tell me that their own department is a mess, I'm inclined to believe them. When the police spokesman quits and publicly castigates the department for being unprofessional, I'm inclined to believe him. When I open the paper and see a whole task force on trial for robbing people and protecting drug dealers, I'm inclined to think we have a problem. When I listen to the news and hear about how we've just nominated our 4th police commissioner THIS YEAR, I'm inclined to think we have a problem.

Even what we know about Freddy Grey (vs what we merely suspect) ought to be enough to at least give people pause. Grey wasn't doing anything wrong. He was only arrested because he ran away from the cops upon seeing them. That alone ought to trigger some 4th amendment concerns.

Then he was detained for not reason, and somehow died in police custody.

I think if Baltimore wasn't racial in any way....if the boy was white, and the rioters were white...you'd still see conservatives mainly on the same side of the issue.

Then why aren't they on that side about Paris? The complaints are both about government overreach or oppression, and the allegations in Baltimore are MUCH MUCH worse.

Well let me put it this way....

If you see people protesting, and the narrative they give you is that it's all about race.....that is, the cops are racist, the media is racist, the government is racist....even the system is racist...that's a very one dimensional perspective on any issue.

As opposed to "my taxes are too high"? Yeah, that's a real deep, multi-dimensional situation.

If you buy into that narrative and start to believe it yourself...then there's really only one way to see the people who are on the other side of that issue....they're racists. In other words, it doesn't matter what positions they take, their arguments, or how they present them. You're just going to think that the underlying reason for their positions is their racism.

You end up projecting what your narrative says onto them regardless of what they actually believe or say. If you believe it's all about race/racism....there's effectively nothing they can say that would change your mind.

Anybody is welcome to explain to me why their double standards aren't based on some underlying racism or lack of concern for people of another race. I'm happy to listen. Make a good enough case and I'll believe them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think I've discussed enough things with you, and explained myself enough times that I deserve a little more consideration than that, don't you? When have I ever just blindly dismissed people for any reason?

I remember when we were discussing Kaepernick and his detractors...and you insinuated (if not outright claimed) that you felt that a large number of them (if not a vast majority) only opposed his protest because of racism. After some back and forth on the topic, I believe that I made the point that those kinds of broad and negative generalizations were unfair if the people making them were unwilling to engage the people they're detracting without any attempt at dialogue. I believe your response was that such discussions were pointless because the other side wouldn't have those conversations in good faith.

While I don't remember if we got to the point where you clarified what you meant by that, I do remember that it sounded like a "blind dismissal" at the time.

I've been watching the right for decades. When I see them employ a double standard, I start looking for differences between the two groups or situations being treated differently to try to figure out why each gets treated the way they do. I didn't go looking for racism; that was merely one of the better explanations I've been able to come up with.

What is the double standard in this case? The only thing that this riot has in common riots across the US in the past 5 years or more is the things they have in common with pretty much all riots.....a large group of people damaging stuff over some issues they deem important.

Are you contending that the conservative media should be issuing the same response to every riot, no matter where, or how large, or how destructive, or what it's about? It seems like a really odd way to look at the news.

Also, why aren't you concerned about the way the liberal media covers it? The fact that they call it a riot instead of just a "protest" seems like a pretty glaring choice of words. All the riots in the US were called protests and the damage was blamed on opportunists and agitators who weren't really a part of the "protest". Later, as it was more apparent that looting was a fairly common feature in these protests....liberals in the media tried to excuse and justify it.

Yet...for some reason...these inconsistencies don't seem to trouble you.

I've also been fairly careful in this thread (and in others) to point out that I don't think race is the only factor. I think it's one of at least a few, with politics being another big one.

I get that, I just don't understand why. US riots in recent years did have a racial element to them....so it's a bit difficult to report on those without mentioning that factor. This riot doesn't appear to have any racial element....it's about economic class....so it's understandable that media wouldn't mention race.

You know, unless they were trying to make it about race.

I'm fairly sure that the numbers of people in Paris are a lot larger, and I don't recall there being any deaths in the Baltimore riots. Last I heard, I think Paris was up to 3 deaths.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that Baltimore and Paris are comparable. That still doesn't explain or justify the difference in attitudes.

It's almost as if they are reporting these as two completely different riots under different circumstances!

Then I'm just gonna say you haven't been paying attention. Even Trump's done more than just boo - a lot more.

It's weird how many times I've seen people act like Trump embodies the political attitudes of the conservatives lol. You're right of course, he didn't just boo....he also stated his opinions on a few different formats.

Is that "getting hysterical" in your opinion? IMO it's no more bizarre than making a spectacle of oneself during the anthem before a football game.

It's been a huge story, particularly on the right. Those links I gave in the OP - swap out "paris" for "kaepernick" and you'll find hundreds of hits on each of their sites (perhaps not on the Twitter links, though - I've edited the OP accordingly).

It's a story about the intersection of politics, sports, and freedom of speech/protest. It was an act done by someone intending to draw attention to himself and generate conversation.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. The conservative media shouldn't have reported on it? If they hadn't, would you be pointing out the hypocrisy of the conservative media for not giving it attention? Would you claim that racism was a factor?

The way they're presented in right-wing media, one would get the impression that they're anarchic enclaves where outsiders can't set foot - like that island where that missionary just got killed, but with a gloomier climate.

That's not really the impression I got....but as I stated, I never really followed the stuff. I looked at them as places where immigrants from another culture were more or less trying to create a community apart from the rest of the nation....more socially than legally....and outsiders (ie natural citizens) were more likely to be victimized or discriminated against.

It's not just a few.

In my understanding, the majority of Republicans in congress and the senate care little about the Kaepernick issue, and haven't particularly gone out of their way to express their views on it.

Yet, you decided to focus on the Trump since he's one that did. I even pointed out this mistake of focusing on those people who fit the stereotypes you have about a group and then generalizing about the larger group....and you still did it.

Imagine if I found the loudest, most racist, most pro-violent Antifa member I could find and then claimed that most liberal protesters were just like him.

You understand the faulty logic in doing that, right?

The perception doesn't arrive out of nowhere, completely unfounded.

There's a thread in News and Current Events about a "racist" incident at a Starbucks between a barista and a customer. You should read through it.

Perception doesn't create reality....and perceptions can be 100% wrong. When it comes to racism...I'd say there's a direct relationship between how much someone obsesses about it and how often they're likely to be wrong.

If you've ever known someone who is really racist....and I mean really racist....you'd know what I'm talking about. They tend to see attacks on their race everywhere.

I'm applying it to the loudest segments of the right, i.e. the folks who've made a fuss in the past about other protests. I'm also applying it to the right-wing celebrities and politicians to whom these folks look for guidance.

So a small minority of conservatives?

No, actually, it's not easier to just call them racist. It's kind of a frustrating pain in the butt. What's easier is asking them to explain their reasoning and then listening to the explanation. If an explanation makes sense (even if I don't agree with it), then I can say "okay" and not question it anymore. Maybe other folks are different, but for me, that takes the least amount of energy.

Here's a conservative article about it....

Steyn on Paris Riots: Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore Can Afford $7 Gas, Ordinary People Cannot

There's also an accompanying video of a discussion about the topic. Tell me if it seems like race has anything to do with their coverage of the event (including the tone of that coverage).....and if so, why?

But after years of asking for reasonable explanations for this disparity and many others, and getting nothing approaching logical or consistent, I've come to the conclusion that many of the disparities and apparent double standards I see on the right aren't driven by ration or logic, but rather by something more primal.

Hard to comment on this without knowing what you're talking about. What's one of these primally driven disparities or double standards that you speak of?

I'm cool with just one, but feel free to share as many as you want.

That's still political.

You understand there's a difference between "the politics of the protesters" and the "political reasons for a protest".

That's A goal, and probably the most easily clarified, but it's not the only one:

Oh, I've no doubt that if we took a survey of protesters....those reasons and more would pop up frequently. After all, people would probably feel silly about saying that gas prices are the whole point of it.

Yet when the tax hike on gas was killed....the riots ended rather quickly.

The goals in Baltimore were not unclear, either: stop abusing people.

You've got a funny idea about what constitutes a clear goal. Without any means of identifying it or achieving it...all your left with is a slogan for justifying burning and looting businesses and assaulting cops.

The problem is that it's a lot easier to suspend a single tax than it is to undo decades of dysfunction.

No....I think the problem is that in France, the riots serve as a means to an end. Obviously destroying property and people being injured or killed is not a good way to achieve anything....but regardless, something was achieved.

In Baltimore, it's not clear what people even wanted to achieve....but it was clear that whatever was the desired effect, it wasn't something that could happen by destruction and violence.

I feel like this is so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it. You agree don't you? That whatever the people of Baltimore wanted...they weren't going to get there by attacking the police and looting dozens of drugstores?

Those aren't rhetorical questions either...I'm genuinely interested if you agree or not.

Oh baloney. Setting cars on fire and trashing the Arc de Triumph over a gas tax is "direct political activism", but setting cars on fire and robbing a CVS because the Baltimore PD is a corrupt, abusive, sometimes-murderous mess is "racially fueled revenge"?

Give me a break. That's the kind of ridiculous double standard I'm talking about.

This all goes to what I've been saying above. The Paris riot served a purpose....the Baltimore riot didn't. It was fueled by the accidental death of Freddie Gray. A death which, unless I'm mistaken, the police involved were already under investigation for.

What exactly was the purpose of the Baltimore riot? Did they hope to speed the investigation along? Perhaps they wanted to forego any pursuit of justice altogether and just string the officers up in the town square?
I get that the people were mad about what happened to Freddie. I also get that their mistrust of the police fueled some rather fantastic conspiracy theories about cops deciding on a whim to murder a black kid and then continue on their way as if nothing happened. Remember what I said earlier about perception? As far as I can tell, people bought into some fantasy about the cops excessively attacking Freddie, seriously injuring him, then murdering him to cover it up. It was this imaginary injustice that sparked the riot (and of course the almost constant media coverage of different "evil racist cops" across the nation). If there was some sort of end goal that people were fighting for...I'd agree that it's very similar to Paris. I can't even make one up though....and I'm a fairly creative guy.

Sorry, but you have to try really hard to pretend that Freddy Grey was just some kind of isolated incident to which people immediately rushed to judgment. This city has been screwed up for a long time.

I'm not pretending that it's an isolated incident. It is the one that sparked the riot though....and led to looting apologists (or was that Charleston?).

When cops who patrol my neighborhood IN BALTIMORE tell me that their own department is a mess, I'm inclined to believe them. When the police spokesman quits and publicly castigates the department for being unprofessional, I'm inclined to believe him. When I open the paper and see a whole task force on trial for robbing people and protecting drug dealers, I'm inclined to think we have a problem. When I listen to the news and hear about how we've just nominated our 4th police commissioner THIS YEAR, I'm inclined to think we have a problem.

Even what we know about Freddy Grey (vs what we merely suspect) ought to be enough to at least give people pause. Grey wasn't doing anything wrong. He was only arrested because he ran away from the cops upon seeing them. That alone ought to trigger some 4th amendment concerns.

Should it? Fleeing from cops on sight would probably fall under "reasonable suspicion" when combined with the fact that the cops were on patrol in an area known for gang and drug activity.

I'm not sure why, but some people seem to think that the police can only stop/detain you if they see a crime in progress. That's not how it works out in real life. If circumstances lead a cop to reasonably conclude that someone may be involved in criminal activity....they can detain you and investigate.

When you think about it, it would be pretty absurd if cops had to see a crime before they could do anything.

Then he was detained for not reason, and somehow died in police custody.

I was under the impression that he was arrested for carrying an illegal knife.

Then why aren't they on that side about Paris? The complaints are both about government overreach or oppression, and the allegations in Baltimore are MUCH MUCH worse.

I feel like I've covered this already....something about senseless violence achieving nothing. If you're still confused about it though....read the article I linked above. Perhaps it's because it fits the right's narrative about environmental regulation being "bad"?

As opposed to "my taxes are too high"? Yeah, that's a real deep, multi-dimensional situation.

Not the same. They're making this issue about taxes on fuel. It's not as if that's their answer to everything.

Imagine if they said, "the police are ineffective because my taxes are too high" and "my kids don't do well in school because my taxes are too high" or "the entire nation was founded upon the idea that high taxes run everything and the repercussions are felt even today!"

That would be a one-dimensional perspective....we could call it "critical tax theory" to try and make it sound smart lol.

Anybody is welcome to explain to me why their double standards aren't based on some underlying racism or lack of concern for people of another race. I'm happy to listen. Make a good enough case and I'll believe them.

So you are starting with the assumption that it's all about race.

As for lack of corcern about other races...I'll just repeat what you told me when I asked you why BLM never shows any concern for the racial issues of non-blacks (despite insisting that they don't think only black lives matter)....

Perhaps they just don't have time for everyone's problems.

Double standards indeed.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I remember when we were discussing Kaepernick and his detractors...and you insinuated (if not outright claimed) that you felt that a large number of them (if not a vast majority) only opposed his protest because of racism. After some back and forth on the topic, I believe that I made the point that those kinds of broad and negative generalizations were unfair if the people making them were unwilling to engage the people they're detracting without any attempt at dialogue. I believe your response was that such discussions were pointless because the other side wouldn't have those conversations in good faith.

While I don't remember if we got to the point where you clarified what you meant by that, I do remember that it sounded like a "blind dismissal" at the time.

I don't recall how that conversation ended, either (probably with me vanishing into a month-long "vacation" - which has happened during more than one of our conversations ). But for any individual, I do try to not write them off without first giving them a chance.

What is the double standard in this case? The only thing that this riot has in common riots across the US in the past 5 years or more is the things they have in common with pretty much all riots.....a large group of people damaging stuff over some issues they deem important.

For my purposes here, that's enough. The actions of both groups were largely similar, even if their motivations were different. Yet, despite those similar actions, the right is giving tacit approval to the protesters in Paris, while they described the people in Baltimore, Ferguson, etc as thugs and heaped vitriol upon them.

Are you contending that the conservative media should be issuing the same response to every riot, no matter where, or how large, or how destructive, or what it's about? It seems like a really odd way to look at the news.

The responses don't have to be identical, but some greater amount of consistency would be a good start.

Also, why aren't you concerned about the way the liberal media covers it? The fact that they call it a riot instead of just a "protest" seems like a pretty glaring choice of words. All the riots in the US were called protests and the damage was blamed on opportunists and agitators who weren't really a part of the "protest". Later, as it was more apparent that looting was a fairly common feature in these protests....liberals in the media tried to excuse and justify it.

Yet...for some reason...these inconsistencies don't seem to trouble you.

They do trouble me. But the delta between how the center & left media (that I'm aware of - I don't watch/read much truly left media) has treated these two groups is much smaller than it is for how the right treated them.

I get that, I just don't understand why. US riots in recent years did have a racial element to them....so it's a bit difficult to report on those without mentioning that factor. This riot doesn't appear to have any racial element....it's about economic class....so it's understandable that media wouldn't mention race.

You know, unless they were trying to make it about race.

The point I'm making is that I believe the racial element (or lack thereof) is one of the reasons for the disparity in the right's reactions. If the protest is about race and/or conducted by a non-white group, then the right is likely to react negatively.

It's almost as if they are reporting these as two completely different riots under different circumstances!

Two different riots that both set cars on fire and caused a lot of other problems.

It's weird how many times I've seen people act like Trump embodies the political attitudes of the conservatives lol.

Trump and many other conservatives are fed their opinions from the same sources. His approval ratings among Republicans have been in the high 80s/low 90s this year.

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Donald Trump

But I mentioned him because he was merely one, easily-identifiable example. There are plenty of others.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. The conservative media shouldn't have reported on it?

I'm saying that, so far, they've handled it differently. It's no uncommon for right-wing media to make something out of nothing (e.g. the no-go zones), yet there was clearly <something> here with the Paris protests, and yet they haven't made much out of it (that I've seen so far, anyways).

In my understanding, the majority of Republicans in congress and the senate care little about the Kaepernick issue, and haven't particularly gone out of their way to express their views on it.

Yet, you decided to focus on the Trump since he's one that did. I even pointed out this mistake of focusing on those people who fit the stereotypes you have about a group and then generalizing about the larger group....and you still did it.

Using Trump as an example does not mean that I'm "focusing" on him. I provided all those links in the OP to demonstrate that the reaction against Kaepernick was wide and long-lived.

There's a thread in News and Current Events about a "racist" incident at a Starbucks between a barista and a customer. You should read through it.

Perception doesn't create reality....and perceptions can be 100% wrong. When it comes to racism...I'd say there's a direct relationship between how much someone obsesses about it and how often they're likely to be wrong.

If you've ever known someone who is really racist....and I mean really racist....you'd know what I'm talking about. They tend to see attacks on their race everywhere.

Yes, I understand that perceptions can be wrong. That's why I'm willing to listen to anyone who can explain away the disparities between the way the right has handled:

Protests in Paris vs Protests in Baltimore, Ferguson, etc
Obama's alleged birthplace & citizenship vs Ted Cruz' actual birthplace & citizenship
Non-existent in-person voting fraud around the country vs What looks to be real election fraud in NC.

etc etc etc

But I'm still waiting for a good explanation to those.

We're 7 pages into this thread and the best explanation you or anybody else has given me for treating the Paris riots with more consideration is that they had a clearer goal - as if having a clear goal somehow justifies rioting. Having a goal doesn't mean you're not a violent thug; it just means you're a focused, deliberate thug.

Oh, I've no doubt that if we took a survey of protesters....those reasons and more would pop up frequently. After all, people would probably feel silly about saying that gas prices are the whole point of it.

Yet when the tax hike on gas was killed....the riots ended rather quickly.

Nope. Act 4 is slated for this weekend:

Eiffel Tower to close Saturday due to planned Paris protests

You've got a funny idea about what constitutes a clear goal. Without any means of identifying it or achieving it...all your left with is a slogan for justifying burning and looting businesses and assaulting cops.

From what I've seen of the Paris protests, I don't think the clarity of the goals there is substantially different from the clarity of the goals laid out in Baltimore. I think you're overstating the clarity of Paris and understating the clarity of Baltimore. Neither was perfect, but neither was totally nebulous.

No....I think the problem is that in France, the riots serve as a means to an end. Obviously destroying property and people being injured or killed is not a good way to achieve anything....but regardless, something was achieved.

In Baltimore, it's not clear what people even wanted to achieve....but it was clear that whatever was the desired effect, it wasn't something that could happen by destruction and violence.

I feel like this is so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it. You agree don't you? That whatever the people of Baltimore wanted...they weren't going to get there by attacking the police and looting dozens of drugstores?

Those aren't rhetorical questions either...I'm genuinely interested if you agree or not.

I do agree and I don't agree. On one hand, yes, I agree that rioting is certainly a misguided way of achieving your goals (I don't really understand any form of street protest, tbh). On the other hand, I do not agree that the Baltimore protests were as ineffective as you appear to believe. I live here; I see and read about the work that's been going on since then. I can assure you that they motivated a LOT of people to work to fix thing. As to how much success people have had... Well, that's another question. But it's not for lack of effort or attention. The effects of the riot aren't merely a memory - there is a constant, daily, visible struggle here to fix the problems that drove them.

This all goes to what I've been saying above. The Paris riot served a purpose....the Baltimore riot didn't. It was fueled by the accidental death of Freddie Gray. A death which, unless I'm mistaken, the police involved were already under investigation for.

What exactly was the purpose of the Baltimore riot? Did they hope to speed the investigation along? Perhaps they wanted to forego any pursuit of justice altogether and just string the officers up in the town square?
I get that the people were mad about what happened to Freddie. I also get that their mistrust of the police fueled some rather fantastic conspiracy theories about cops deciding on a whim to murder a black kid and then continue on their way as if nothing happened. Remember what I said earlier about perception? As far as I can tell, people bought into some fantasy about the cops excessively attacking Freddie, seriously injuring him, then murdering him to cover it up. It was this imaginary injustice that sparked the riot (and of course the almost constant media coverage of different "evil racist cops" across the nation). If there was some sort of end goal that people were fighting for...I'd agree that it's very similar to Paris. I can't even make one up though....and I'm a fairly creative guy.

I would argue that you don't really understand the situation in Baltimore. It was never only about Freddy Grey - just like how the Paris protests aren't only about the gas tax. The BPD has been messed up and abusing people for a long time. The city as a whole has been messed up and corrupt for a long time. Freddy Grey was just the trigger that got people to say that enough is enough.

Should it? Fleeing from cops on sight would probably fall under "reasonable suspicion" when combined with the fact that the cops were on patrol in an area known for gang and drug activity.

I'm not sure why, but some people seem to think that the police can only stop/detain you if they see a crime in progress. That's not how it works out in real life. If circumstances lead a cop to reasonably conclude that someone may be involved in criminal activity....they can detain you and investigate.

When you think about it, it would be pretty absurd if cops had to see a crime before they could do anything.

I don't agree. At all. I understand that the courts have given leeway to officers in these situations, but I don't really like it. When you give officers license to imagine a threat, then they're likely to imagine threats that don't exist and hassle people who aren't doing anything (see: NYC stop n frisk)

I was under the impression that he was arrested for carrying an illegal knife.

They found the knife on him after they had him in custody. It wasn't the justification for the initial stop.

As for lack of corcern about other races...I'll just repeat what you told me when I asked you why BLM never shows any concern for the racial issues of non-blacks (despite insisting that they don't think only black lives matter)....

Perhaps they just don't have time for everyone's problems.

Double standards indeed.

For these situations to be comparable, the right would have to be ignoring the concerns of non-whites, not actively railing against them.[/quote]

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

We're 7 pages into this thread and the best explanation you or anybody else has given me for treating the Paris riots with more consideration is that they had a clearer goal - as if having a clear goal somehow justifies rioting. Having a goal doesn't mean you're not a violent thug; it just means you're a focused, deliberate thug.

The aim of the riot makes all the difference in world, because it determines its fundamental nature Whether it justifies the riot is a different question - that is largely an matter of under what circumstance violence can be justified. If you're a pacifist, you're not going to be convinced that gilets jaunes actions are justified. But even then there's no reason to see the difference between correcting a policy that threatens your livelihood and efforts to intimidate the police. It's actually a stretch of logic to compare the two. They have little in common with each other, and what similarities do exist are rather superficial.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The aim of the riot makes all the difference in world, because it determines its fundamental nature Whether it justifies the riot is a different question - that is largely an matter of under what circumstance violence can be justified. If you're a pacifist, you're not going to be convinced that gilets jaunes actions are justified. But even then there's no reason to see the difference between correcting a policy that threatens your livelihood and efforts to intimidate the police. It's actually a stretch of logic to compare the two. They have little in common with each other, and what similarities do exist are rather superficial.

By any measure, from any perspective or political orientation - the allegations made in Baltimore were worse than those made in Paris. In Paris, the complaint is that the middle and working classes (particularly those from outside urban areas) are being soaked and neglected for the sake of wealthy urbanites. FWIW, I expect their complaints are perfectly valid. But in Baltimore, similar economic conditions existed (and still exist, and in many places across the city, they're quite a bit worse) and on top of that was thrown a layer of corrupt and abusive police and ineffective city government. Not that I think rioting is good for anybody, but if either of the two groups had justification, I would argue that it's the group living in neighborhoods full of vacant houses and abusive cops.

 

[Sparagmos]

I think I've discussed enough things with you, and explained myself enough times that I deserve a little more consideration than that, don't you? When have I ever just blindly dismissed people for any reason?

I've been watching the right for decades. When I see them employ a double standard, I start looking for differences between the two groups or situations being treated differently to try to figure out why each gets treated the way they do. I didn't go looking for racism; that was merely one of the better explanations I've been able to come up with.

I've also been fairly careful in this thread (and in others) to point out that I don't think race is the only factor. I think it's one of at least a few, with politics being another big one.



I'm fairly sure that the numbers of people in Paris are a lot larger, and I don't recall there being any deaths in the Baltimore riots. Last I heard, I think Paris was up to 3 deaths.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that Baltimore and Paris are comparable. That still doesn't explain or justify the difference in attitudes.



Then I'm just gonna say you haven't been paying attention. Even Trump's done more than just boo - a lot more. It's been a huge story, particularly on the right. Those links I gave in the OP - swap out "paris" for "kaepernick" and you'll find hundreds of hits on each of their sites (perhaps not on the Twitter links, though - I've edited the OP accordingly).




The way they're presented in right-wing media, one would get the impression that they're anarchic enclaves where outsiders can't set foot - like that island where that missionary just got killed, but with a gloomier climate.

However, reality is rather more boring than that:
"No-go areas" - Is Germany unsafe? | DW | 20.03.2018

They're just basically areas with higher crime.



It's not just a few.



The perception doesn't arrive out of nowhere, completely unfounded.



I'm applying it to the loudest segments of the right, i.e. the folks who've made a fuss in the past about other protests. I'm also applying it to the right-wing celebrities and politicians to whom these folks look for guidance.



No, actually, it's not easier to just call them racist. It's kind of a frustrating pain in the butt. What's easier is asking them to explain their reasoning and then listening to the explanation. If an explanation makes sense (even if I don't agree with it), then I can say "okay" and not question it anymore. Maybe other folks are different, but for me, that takes the least amount of energy.

But after years of asking for reasonable explanations for this disparity and many others, and getting nothing approaching logical or consistent, I've come to the conclusion that many of the disparities and apparent double standards I see on the right aren't driven by ration or logic, but rather by something more primal.



Lots of liberals are idiots.



That's still political.



That's A goal, and probably the most easily clarified, but it's not the only one:



The goals in Baltimore were not unclear, either: stop abusing people.

The problem is that it's a lot easier to suspend a single tax than it is to undo decades of dysfunction.



Oh baloney. Setting cars on fire and trashing the Arc de Triumph over a gas tax is "direct political activism", but setting cars on fire and robbing a CVS because the Baltimore PD is a corrupt, abusive, sometimes-murderous mess is "racially fueled revenge"?

Give me a break. That's the kind of ridiculous double standard I'm talking about.



Sorry, but you have to try really hard to pretend that Freddy Grey was just some kind of isolated incident to which people immediately rushed to judgment. This city has been screwed up for a long time.

When cops who patrol my neighborhood IN BALTIMORE tell me that their own department is a mess, I'm inclined to believe them. When the police spokesman quits and publicly castigates the department for being unprofessional, I'm inclined to believe him. When I open the paper and see a whole task force on trial for robbing people and protecting drug dealers, I'm inclined to think we have a problem. When I listen to the news and hear about how we've just nominated our 4th police commissioner THIS YEAR, I'm inclined to think we have a problem.

Even what we know about Freddy Grey (vs what we merely suspect) ought to be enough to at least give people pause. Grey wasn't doing anything wrong. He was only arrested because he ran away from the cops upon seeing them. That alone ought to trigger some 4th amendment concerns.

Then he was detained for not reason, and somehow died in police custody.



Then why aren't they on that side about Paris? The complaints are both about government overreach or oppression, and the allegations in Baltimore are MUCH MUCH worse.



As opposed to "my taxes are too high"? Yeah, that's a real deep, multi-dimensional situation.



Anybody is welcome to explain to me why their double standards aren't based on some underlying racism or lack of concern for people of another race. I'm happy to listen. Make a good enough case and I'll believe them.

Great response!

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't recall how that conversation ended, either (probably with me vanishing into a month-long "vacation" - which has happened during more than one of our conversations ). But for any individual, I do try to not write them off without first giving them a chance.

If you say so...

For my purposes here, that's enough. The actions of both groups were largely similar, even if their motivations were different.

For your purposes...and I get that if you were writing the articles about this, your purposes would be worth considering. You aren't writing the articles though...

Yet, despite those similar actions, the right is giving tacit approval to the protesters in Paris, while they described the people in Baltimore, Ferguson, etc as thugs and heaped vitriol upon them.

I haven't seen any "tacit approval" from the right on the Paris riots.

I did go back and look at 2015 articles about the Baltimore riot, and frankly, I didn't see a lot of vitriol heaped upon the rioters there either. I saw more condemnation of the democrat government that decided to prevent the police from stopping looters...but not that much about the looters themselves. Here's an example...

Baltimore riots: Who will protect rights, lives and property of city's residents?

So while there's mention of looters....it's mostly in relation to this policy of "let them loot". Could you give an example of this disparaging you're talking about?

They do trouble me. But the delta between how the center & left media (that I'm aware of - I don't watch/read much truly left media) has treated these two groups is much smaller than it is for how the right treated them.

Really? The liberal articles on Paris pretty consistently paint it as the worst thing to happen to Paris in decades. The articles about Baltimore looked like this...

The Baltimore Riots Weren’t Hooliganism. They Were a Protest Against the Ghetto Economy.

Almost endless justification for rioting and looting while the real problem was those conservatives who had the gall to say looting was bad.

Here's the same liberal website with an article about Paris....

France Considers State of Emergency Following Worst Riots Since 1968

So to recap....Baltimore riots are justified by years of oppression and frustration. Paris riots are chaos and violence without leaders or focus.

If you see these two events as so similar....why don't you think the left is racist like you think the right is?

The point I'm making is that I believe the racial element (or lack thereof) is one of the reasons for the disparity in the right's reactions. If the protest is about race and/or conducted by a non-white group, then the right is likely to react negatively.

I understand what you think...I just don't understand why. You clearly don't think that about the left.

Trump and many other conservatives are fed their opinions from the same sources. His approval ratings among Republicans have been in the high 80s/low 90s this year.

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Donald Trump

But I mentioned him because he was merely one, easily-identifiable example. There are plenty of others.

I don't see how approval ratings equals shared opinions.

I'm saying that, so far, they've handled it differently. It's no uncommon for right-wing media to make something out of nothing (e.g. the no-go zones),

Did you read the Merkel quote? It certainly sounds like she thinks there's "something" to it.

After years of claiming that no go zones don't exist....you'd think the liberal media would at least acknowledge their mistakes. I couldn't find any that did though.

Using Trump as an example does not mean that I'm "focusing" on him. I provided all those links in the OP to demonstrate that the reaction against Kaepernick was wide and long-lived.

Kaepernick protested....and was let go. Then other players began kneeling for the anthem and liberals kept arguing that they should be allowed to. If the whole thing ended with Kaepernick, I don't think conservatives would have continued arguing about it.

Yes, I understand that perceptions can be wrong. That's why I'm willing to listen to anyone who can explain away the disparities between the way the right has handled:

Protests in Paris vs Protests in Baltimore, Ferguson, etc
Obama's alleged birthplace & citizenship vs Ted Cruz' actual birthplace & citizenship
Non-existent in-person voting fraud around the country vs What looks to be real election fraud in NC.

etc etc etc

But I'm still waiting for a good explanation to those.

Tell you what....I'll gladly take a stab at those if you can explain just one double standard from the left.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...WMAh6BAgDEAE&usg=AOvVaw09I-rT9iTdKRhbuihgnfT6

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...WMAB6BAgEEAE&usg=AOvVaw2bygj8GJlHjgf8qVnkRZx2

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...WMAl6BAgAEAE&usg=AOvVaw24qcPHVC9Mt_NvUzqJ-_z9

I could literally post a dozen articles on this, but you get the idea. The "O.K." hand sign has taken on a new meaning for liberals as a "white supremacist" symbol.

Yet as you've specifically argued with me...this simply cannot be so. As you've explained, it's the original meaning of a symbol (like the Confederate flag) that counts and everyone else is just wrong. I'm sure you've noticed that there isn't some massive group of liberals berating those who think that symbols can change meaning when it comes to the OK sign the way they did when people would try to argue that the Confederate flag was just a symbol of Southern pride.

Why can't the left maintain any level of consistency when it comes to the meaning of symbols? I could easily point out that they've done the same thing with the definition of racism over and over again....but I'd rather not take this thread completely off course.

Now, I understand that the 3 issues that you mentioned probably seem important....but if conservatives aren't consistent about Ted Cruz's birth certificate....does that actually affect anyone? Does it have any wider implications beyond making them sound rather stupid?

The double standard I pointed out (and there's more where that came from) involve controlling the meaning of words and symbols for the sole purpose of labeling people enemies and justifying hatred, division, and scapegoating them.

The only consistent aspect of the left's narrative is who they demonize....in order...

1. Whites
2. Men
3. Conservatives

We're 7 pages into this thread and the best explanation you or anybody else has given me for treating the Paris riots with more consideration is that they had a clearer goal - as if having a clear goal somehow justifies rioting. Having a goal doesn't mean you're not a violent thug; it just means you're a focused, deliberate thug.

I never said it justified rioting. I just pointed out a major difference between the two riots that would explain why there might be a difference in tone between articles.

Nope. Act 4 is slated for this weekend:

Eiffel Tower to close Saturday due to planned Paris protests

They scheduled a riot?


From what I've seen of the Paris protests, I don't think the clarity of the goals there is substantially different from the clarity of the goals laid out in Baltimore. I think you're overstating the clarity of Paris and understating the clarity of Baltimore. Neither was perfect, but neither was totally nebulous.[/QUOTE]

Then I suppose it's a really good thing you aren't a politician. It's the difference between identifying a problem, identifying the solution, then engaging in activism.....and engaging in activism with only a vague concept of the problem and expecting others to solve it for you.

I do agree and I don't agree. On one hand, yes, I agree that rioting is certainly a misguided way of achieving your goals (I don't really understand any form of street protest, tbh). On the other hand, I do not agree that the Baltimore protests were as ineffective as you appear to believe. I live here; I see and read about the work that's been going on since then. I can assure you that they motivated a LOT of people to work to fix thing. As to how much success people have had... Well, that's another question. But it's not for lack of effort or attention.

Well let's look at how much success they've had...

Baltimore Residents Blame Record-High Murder Rate On Lower Police Presence

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

Yes, the riots affected change...arguably for the worse. Freddie died, it probably wasn't the fault of the police, probably wasn't even racially motivated....but that didn't stop the people from identifying the cops as the problem. But how were they the problem? It doesn't seem like they used excessive force, and he definitely could use his legs before his vertebrae was broken...so what was the issue?

Some determined, like you seem to have, that he never should've been chased and arrested. This is called "pro-active" policing. It's where cops go into high crime areas, and if they see suspicious behavior (like someone running from them on sight) they investigate it.

Obviously, people who are fragile about talking to the police when they haven't committed a crime aren't going to be fans of this sort of police work....but obviously, it's a lot more effective than just showing up after you've been called about a crime.

So the reaction to the riots was to change tactics to avoid the Freddie situation in the future. Baltimore police are now "reactive"....and respond when called. The result? More crime, more violence, more people dead. Who takes the blame? The police lol.

My point here is that it's absolutely critical to correctly identify the problem, the solution, and then committing to political action.

Here in the US, people are more concerned with virtue signaling and leaving the actual problem solving to others.

I would argue that you don't really understand the situation in Baltimore. It was never only about Freddy Grey - just like how the Paris protests aren't only about the gas tax. The BPD has been messed up and abusing people for a long time. The city as a whole has been messed up and corrupt for a long time. Freddy Grey was just the trigger that got people to say that enough is enough.

And I'd argue that you don't really understand how a police department gets "messed up" as you put it. Give a bunch of men an impossible task, don't support them, overwork them, under pay them, disrespect them regularly....and hold them to an impossible standard. Oh yeah, don't forget to call them racist when it's warranted or not.

You think that might create a climate where they see each other as their only allies? Think they might start to put themselves first over the public?

Don't mistake those for excuses either....nothing excuses corruption or abuse. If you're genuinely interested in solving problems and not just laying blame....they are things you should consider.

I don't agree. At all. I understand that the courts have given leeway to officers in these situations, but I don't really like it. When you give officers license to imagine a threat, then they're likely to imagine threats that don't exist and hassle people who aren't doing anything (see: NYC stop n frisk)

Stop and frisk was a law. Reasonable suspicion is a legal precedent.

As for hassling...is it such a hassle to have a cop ask you a few questions? I understand that some people immediately get an attitude about it, but believe it or not, people could just be polite and respectful towards one another and the police would reciprocate.

It's a wild concept.

They found the knife on him after they had him in custody. It wasn't the justification for the initial stop.

Never said it was.

For these situations to be comparable, the right would have to be ignoring the concerns of non-whites, not actively railing against them.

Lol why? Because the left doesn't actively rail against whites? Hmmmm...let's see, there's the redefinition of racism aka only whites are racist, the casual racism against whites by reporters and professors aka Sarah Jeong, the magical ideas of implicit bias, "white fragility" which refers to whenever a white person doesn't accept they're racist, and let's not forget "white privilege" the magical force which propels whites to success without even noticing it.

And let's not forget the likes of Don Lemon and Farrakhan who can apparently say any racist things they want about whites and the left will either make excuses or ignore it.

For it to be comparable....the right would have to openly engage in sustained racism against non-whites and I'm not talking about Stormfront or some extremists, I'm talking about the equivalent of the NYT running a piece titled "Should I Trust White People".

 

[yougottabekidding]

I am confused -

i can't find and information anywhere saying that this riot was racially motivated??

Everything I read says that the government raised taxes on fuel to force people to give up fossil fuel cars/trucks etc. (not a conservative project at all), and the people went nuts at having their taxes raised.

It began as a movement among a few people in lower middle-class rural France protesting a new eco-tax on fuel they felt would push their budgets over the edge.

But as France locks down in preparation for a possible fourth weekend of violent protests, the movement of "gilet jaunes," named after the yellow high-visibility jackets French motorists must carry in their vehicles, has morphed into a movement of many colors, with extremist groups jumping on the bandwagon.
​

So it wasn't white suburbanites, but lower middle class rural folks.

Who is saying it is racially motivated? It doesn't seem to be supported anywhere?

It is money motivated from people tired of high taxes.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I am confused -

i can't find and information anywhere saying that this riot was racially motivated??

Have you tried the preceding 7 pages in this thread?

 

[Aldebaran]

I am confused -

i can't find and information anywhere saying that this riot was racially motivated??

Everything I read says that the government raised taxes on fuel to force people to give up fossil fuel cars/trucks etc. (not a conservative project at all), and the people went nuts at having their taxes raised.

It began as a movement among a few people in lower middle-class rural France protesting a new eco-tax on fuel they felt would push their budgets over the edge.

But as France locks down in preparation for a possible fourth weekend of violent protests, the movement of "gilet jaunes," named after the yellow high-visibility jackets French motorists must carry in their vehicles, has morphed into a movement of many colors, with extremist groups jumping on the bandwagon.
​

So it wasn't white suburbanites, but lower middle class rural folks.

Who is saying it is racially motivated? It doesn't seem to be supported anywhere?

It is money motivated from people tired of high taxes.

In the news coverage, I've noticed that there were plenty of people who aren't white taking part in the riots.

 

[SummerMadness]

It comes as no surprise at the type of language Fox News used for these protestors:

Their language is unsurprisingly different when it comes to police misconduct and demonstrations protesting police brutality. Where was there you can't treat people with contempt and expect no consequences rhetoric then?

 

[LostMarbels]

Even though France is currently experiencing demonstrations and riots on a scale that hasn’t been seen since at least the historic year of 1968, we’ve heard relatively little about it from our media here at home.

This should suffice to elicit some measure of curiosity from the skeptical.

After all, over the last so many years, whenever France’s North African and Middle Eastern Islamic immigrants would spend a few nights burning cars and attacking police, the media, and the cable news media specifically, would expend no small measure of their time treating viewers to footage of the mayhem.

This is because such rioting served the left’s agenda, a program that consists of the promotion of massive Third World immigration into the West and that relies upon a narrative featuring white oppressors and non-white victims. These riots could readily be spun as the consequence of unconscionable material inequality, which in turn could be interpreted as the function of the “racism” of the white oppressors.

The latest riotous demonstrations, however, are anything but friendly to most of the media’s ideology.

In fact, the causes for the sake of which hundreds of thousands of folks throughout France have taken to the streets are all but antithetical to those which are characteristically championed by the left. It is this that explains why the leftist media has spent precious little time attending to the demonstrations, and why what attention journalists and pundits have paid it have been accompanied by efforts to misrepresent it as something that it is not.

The spirit of the Yellow Vests is now spreading across Europe: The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Sweden are the most recent countries in which it’s manifesting itself.


Jack Kerwick Posted: Dec 10, 2018 12:01 AM Townhall.com.



This entire revolt is much more that just a small isolated riot in Paris. It is a nationwide revolt against globalism, the EU, and elitists in government that are not representing the people. This is their official list of demands/concerns and why they are revolting.

Gilets Jaunes' List of Demands

Economy/Work

• A constitutional cap on taxes - at 25%
• Increase of 40% in the basic pension and social welfare
• Increase hiring in public sector to re-establish public services
• Massive construction projects to house 5 million homeless, and severe penalties for mayors/prefectures that leave people on the streets
• Break up the 'too-big-to-fail' banks, re-separate regular banking from investment banking
• Cancel debts accrued through usurious rates of interest

Politics

• Constitutional amendments to protect the people's interests, including binding referenda
• The barring of lobby groups and vested interests from political decision-making
• Frexit: Leave the EU to regain our economic, monetary and political sovereignty (In other words, respect the 2005 referendum result, when France voted against the EU Constitution Treaty, which was then renamed the Lisbon Treaty, and the French people ignored)
• Clampdown on tax evasion by the ultra-rich
• The immediate cessation of privatization, and the re-nationalization of public goods like motorways, airports, rail, etc
• Remove all ideology from the ministry of education, ending all destructive education techniques
• Quadruple the budget for law and order and put time-limits on judicial procedures. Make access to the justice system available for all
• Break up media monopolies and end their interference in politics. Make media accessible to citizens and guarantee a plurality of opinions. End editorial propaganda
• Guarantee citizens' liberty by including in the constitution a complete prohibition on state interference in their decisions concerning education, health and family matters

Health/Environment

• No more 'planned obsolescence' - Mandate guarantee from producers that their products will last 10 years, and that spare parts will be available during that period
• Ban plastic bottles and other polluting packaging
• Weaken the influence of big pharma on health in general and hospitals in particular
• Ban on GMO crops, carcinogenic pesticides, endocrine disruptors and monocrops
• Reindustrialize France (thereby reducing imports and thus pollution)

Foreign Affairs

• End France's participation in foreign wars of aggression, and exit from NATO
• Cease pillaging and interfering - politically and militarily - in 'Francafrique', which keeps Africa poor. Immediately repatriate all French soldiers. Establish relations with African states on an equal peer-to-peer basis
• Prevent migratory flows that cannot be accommodated or integrated, given the profound civilizational crisis we are experiencing
• Scrupulously respect international law and the treaties we have signed

 

[LostMarbels]

90,000 police 'deployed' across the nation. 700 arrests in paris. Reportedly: "Hundreds of thousands – cumulatively several millions of Yellow Vests have demonstrated and blocked at times most of Paris during the past two weeks..."

What we are witnessing is full scale revolt against the EU spreading across europe. This is not a little temper tantrum riot.