Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Recent Posts


I hate...
Today at 07:08 PM

PTSD
Today at 06:34 PM

The new Qur'an !!!!
Today at 06:07 PM

St. Louis Shooting
by lua
Today at 04:07 PM

ISIS take Mosul
Today at 02:31 PM

My spirituality as an Ath...
Today at 02:26 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
Today at 02:22 PM

Reading Quran And Inquiri...
by moi
Today at 01:48 PM

Kalam Cosmological argume...
Today at 01:27 PM

A prophet of God
by moi
Today at 12:53 PM

“Your women are your fiel...
by moi
Today at 12:40 PM

The El Lawrence Theory of...
by moi
Today at 12:21 PM

Donations

Kitty is lost

Theme Changer

 Topic: Riots in London

 (Read 16187 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 14 15 1617 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #450 - August 14, 2011, 02:43 AM

    That is because systemic violence is mostly invisible.
    It is seen as 'normal', 'peaceful' state of things. It is a zero level standard against which objective violence such as violence of these riots are perceived as subjectively violent.
    Systemic violence is not perceived as subjectively violent hence most do not see it as problematic regardless of the fact that it has to be taken into account if one is to make sense of such 'irrational' outbursts as we have witnessed.

    Good job in pointing out the culpability of the systemic violence in all this mess, Q.  Afro

    Yes, but there is a complete difference between the sort of ‘violence’ that, for example, inflates the price of petrol, and the kind of violence that will get you killed by looting mobsters.

  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #451 - August 14, 2011, 02:48 AM

    which is?

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #452 - August 14, 2011, 07:57 AM

    Yes, but there is a complete difference between the sort of ‘violence’ that, for example, inflates the price of petrol, and the kind of violence that will get you killed by looting mobsters.

    Of course they are different. One is a direct, physical violence enacted by individuals. The other is the invisible background of systemic violence which can turn physical but is usually more subtle and includes forms of coercion that sustain relations of dominance and exploitation and include threat of real violence in case one 'misbehaves'.

    Like Q said, pretty much everybody is almost exclusively focused on the former while ignoring the latter.

    During WW2 a German officer visited Picasso in his Paris studio where he saw Guernica and apparently shocked at at the modernist 'chaos' of the painting asked Picasso: "Did you do this?"
    Picasso replied: "No, you did this!"
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #453 - August 14, 2011, 09:47 AM

    During WW2 a German officer visited Picasso in his Paris studio where he saw Guernica and apparently shocked at at the modernist 'chaos' of the painting asked Picasso: "Did you do this?"
    Picasso replied: "No, you did this!"


    That is magnificent! Another reason to add to my justification for having ½ of Pablo Picasso’s face as my facebook pic profile Afro.

    And yes, I understand your point.

  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #454 - August 14, 2011, 11:06 PM

    Whoa!
    'The whites have become black' says historian David Starke
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517


    Jesus!  mysmilie_977 He should have made the point that certain inner city cultures are the problem, but separate it from race. But his point appeared to be black people are violent because they are black, but whites are violent because they are copying blacks. I've read that crap on youtube comments, but it's always surprising when someone so intelligent comes out with that crap, but I doubt racism will be eradicated in my lifetime.

    Mainstream Hip hop/inner city culture of course glorifies violence and the majority of artists are black, but he seems to be oblivious to the fact that it was white-owned corporations that marketed the 'gangster' culture to sell records. Solely blaming black people for the spread of 'gangsta' culture is ignorant.   
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #455 - August 14, 2011, 11:38 PM


    I was in Harborne today at a friends kids birthday party. Went to Summerfield park in the afternoon to take a look around the memorial rally for the 3 Pakistani lads killed in Winson Green. Walked around for a bit towards the end. A good few thousand there.  A reflective, humble atmosphere, black, white, asian, speakers from every background. Alot of unity in the air. It was important.

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #456 - August 14, 2011, 11:45 PM

    Cause you always impressed me as being a smart guy


    Even after the red mist descends, you've still got a level head for for some things  Afro



    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #457 - August 20, 2011, 06:13 PM

    Here's Zizek's take on the riots. It's a lengthy read but it's far and away the best opinion piece I've read on the riots.

    Quote
    Shoplifters of the World Unite - Slavoj Žižek on the meaning of the riots

    Repetition, according to Hegel, plays a crucial role in history: when something happens just once, it may be dismissed as an accident, something that might have been avoided if the situation had been handled differently; but when the same event repeats itself, it is a sign that a deeper historical process is unfolding. When Napoleon lost at Leipzig in 1813, it looked like bad luck; when he lost again at Waterloo, it was clear that his time was over. The same holds for the continuing financial crisis. In September 2008, it was presented by some as an anomaly that could be corrected through better regulations etc; now that signs of a repeated financial meltdown are gathering it is clear that we are dealing with a structural phenomenon.

    We are told again and again that we are living through a debt crisis, and that we all have to share the burden and tighten our belts. All, that is, except the (very) rich. The idea of taxing them more is taboo: if we did, the argument runs, the rich would have no incentive to invest, fewer jobs would be created and we would all suffer. The only way to save ourselves from hard times is for the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer. What should the poor do? What can they do?

    Although the riots in the UK were triggered by the suspicious shooting of Mark Duggan, everyone agrees that they express a deeper unease – but of what kind? As with the car burnings in the Paris banlieues in 2005, the UK rioters had no message to deliver. (There is a clear contrast with the massive student demonstrations in November 2010, which also turned to violence. The students were making clear that they rejected the proposed reforms to higher education.) This is why it is difficult to conceive of the UK rioters in Marxist terms, as an instance of the emergence of the revolutionary subject; they fit much better the Hegelian notion of the ‘rabble’, those outside organised social space, who can express their discontent only through ‘irrational’ outbursts of destructive violence – what Hegel called ‘abstract negativity’.

    There is an old story about a worker suspected of stealing: every evening, as he leaves the factory, the wheelbarrow he pushes in front of him is carefully inspected. The guards find nothing; it is always empty. Finally, the penny drops: what the worker is stealing are the wheelbarrows themselves. The guards were missing the obvious truth, just as the commentators on the riots have done. We are told that the disintegration of the Communist regimes in the early 1990s signalled the end of ideology: the time of large-scale ideological projects culminating in totalitarian catastrophe was over; we had entered a new era of rational, pragmatic politics. If the commonplace that we live in a post-ideological era is true in any sense, it can be seen in this recent outburst of violence. This was zero-degree protest, a violent action demanding nothing. In their desperate attempt to find meaning in the riots, the sociologists and editorial-writers obfuscated the enigma the riots presented.

    The protesters, though underprivileged and de facto socially excluded, weren’t living on the edge of starvation. People in much worse material straits, let alone conditions of physical and ideological oppression, have been able to organise themselves into political forces with clear agendas. The fact that the rioters have no programme is therefore itself a fact to be interpreted: it tells us a great deal about our ideological-political predicament and about the kind of society we inhabit, a society which celebrates choice but in which the only available alternative to enforced democratic consensus is a blind acting out. Opposition to the system can no longer articulate itself in the form of a realistic alternative, or even as a utopian project, but can only take the shape of a meaningless outburst. What is the point of our celebrated freedom of choice when the only choice is between playing by the rules and (self-)destructive violence?

    Alain Badiou has argued that we live in a social space which is increasingly experienced as ‘worldless’: in such a space, the only form protest can take is meaningless violence. Perhaps this is one of the main dangers of capitalism: although by virtue of being global it encompasses the whole world, it sustains a ‘worldless’ ideological constellation in which people are deprived of their ways of locating meaning. The fundamental lesson of globalisation is that capitalism can accommodate itself to all civilisations, from Christian to Hindu or Buddhist, from West to East: there is no global ‘capitalist worldview’, no ‘capitalist civilisation’ proper. The global dimension of capitalism represents truth without meaning.

    The first conclusion to be drawn from the riots, therefore, is that both conservative and liberal reactions to the unrest are inadequate. The conservative reaction was predictable: there is no justification for such vandalism; one should use all necessary means to restore order; to prevent further explosions of this kind we need not more tolerance and social help but more discipline, hard work and a sense of responsibility. What’s wrong with this account is not only that it ignores the desperate social situation pushing young people towards violent outbursts but, perhaps more important, that it ignores the way these outbursts echo the hidden premises of conservative ideology itself. When, in the 1990s, the Conservatives launched their ‘back to basics’ campaign, its obscene complement was revealed by Norman Tebbitt: ‘Man is not just a social but also a territorial animal; it must be part of our agenda to satisfy those basic instincts of tribalism and territoriality.’ This is what ‘back to basics’ was really about: the unleashing of the barbarian who lurked beneath our apparently civilised, bourgeois society, through the satisfying of the barbarian’s ‘basic instincts’. In the 1960s, Herbert Marcuse introduced the concept of ‘repressive desublimation’ to explain the ‘sexual revolution’: human drives could be desublimated, allowed free rein, and still be subject to capitalist control – viz, the porn industry. On British streets during the unrest, what we saw was not men reduced to ‘beasts’, but the stripped-down form of the ‘beast’ produced by capitalist ideology.

    Meanwhile leftist liberals, no less predictably, stuck to their mantra about social programmes and integration initiatives, the neglect of which has deprived second and third-generation immigrants of their economic and social prospects: violent outbursts are the only means they have to articulate their dissatisfaction. Instead of indulging ourselves in revenge fantasies, we should make the effort to understand the deeper causes of the outbursts. Can we even imagine what it means to be a young man in a poor, racially mixed area, a priori suspected and harassed by the police, not only unemployed but often unemployable, with no hope of a future? The implication is that the conditions these people find themselves in make it inevitable that they will take to the streets. The problem with this account, though, is that it lists only the objective conditions for the riots. To riot is to make a subjective statement, implicitly to declare how one relates to one’s objective conditions.

    We live in cynical times, and it’s easy to imagine a protester who, caught looting and burning a store and pressed for his reasons, would answer in the language used by social workers and sociologists, citing diminished social mobility, rising insecurity, the disintegration of paternal authority, the lack of maternal love in his early childhood. He knows what he is doing, then, but is doing it nonetheless.

    It is meaningless to ponder which of these two reactions, conservative or liberal, is the worse: as Stalin would have put it, they are both worse, and that includes the warning given by both sides that the real danger of these outbursts resides in the predictable racist reaction of the ‘silent majority’. One of the forms this reaction took was the ‘tribal’ activity of the local (Turkish, Caribbean, Sikh) communities which quickly organised their own vigilante units to protect their property. Are the shopkeepers a small bourgeoisie defending their property against a genuine, if violent, protest against the system; or are they representatives of the working class, fighting the forces of social disintegration? Here too one should reject the demand to take sides. The truth is that the conflict was between two poles of the underprivileged: those who have succeeded in functioning within the system versus those who are too frustrated to go on trying. The rioters’ violence was almost exclusively directed against their own. The cars burned and the shops looted were not in rich neighbourhoods, but in the rioters’ own. The conflict is not between different parts of society; it is, at its most radical, the conflict between society and society, between those with everything, and those with nothing, to lose; between those with no stake in their community and those whose stakes are the highest.

    Zygmunt Bauman characterised the riots as acts of ‘defective and disqualified consumers’: more than anything else, they were a manifestation of a consumerist desire violently enacted when unable to realise itself in the ‘proper’ way – by shopping. As such, they also contain a moment of genuine protest, in the form of an ironic response to consumerist ideology: ‘You call on us to consume while simultaneously depriving us of the means to do it properly – so here we are doing it the only way we can!’ The riots are a demonstration of the material force of ideology – so much, perhaps, for the ‘post-ideological society’. From a revolutionary point of view, the problem with the riots is not the violence as such, but the fact that the violence is not truly self-assertive. It is impotent rage and despair masked as a display of force; it is envy masked as triumphant carnival.

    The riots should be situated in relation to another type of violence that the liberal majority today perceives as a threat to our way of life: terrorist attacks and suicide bombings. In both instances, violence and counter-violence are caught up in a vicious circle, each generating the forces it tries to combat. In both cases, we are dealing with blind passages à l’acte, in which violence is an implicit admission of impotence. The difference is that, in contrast to the riots in the UK or in Paris, terrorist attacks are carried out in service of the absolute Meaning provided by religion.

    But weren’t the Arab uprisings a collective act of resistance that avoided the false alternative of self-destructive violence and religious fundamentalism? Unfortunately, the Egyptian summer of 2011 will be remembered as marking the end of revolution, a time when its emancipatory potential was suffocated. Its gravediggers are the army and the Islamists. The contours of the pact between the army (which is Mubarak’s army) and the Islamists (who were marginalised in the early months of the upheaval but are now gaining ground) are increasingly clear: the Islamists will tolerate the army’s material privileges and in exchange will secure ideological hegemony. The losers will be the pro-Western liberals, too weak – in spite of the CIA funding they are getting – to ‘promote democracy’, as well as the true agents of the spring events, the emerging secular left that has been trying to set up a network of civil society organisations, from trade unions to feminists. The rapidly worsening economic situation will sooner or later bring the poor, who were largely absent from the spring protests, onto the streets. There is likely to be a new explosion, and the difficult question for Egypt’s political subjects is who will succeed in directing the rage of the poor? Who will translate it into a political programme: the new secular left or the Islamists?

    The predominant reaction of Western public opinion to the pact between Islamists and the army will no doubt be a triumphant display of cynical wisdom: we will be told that, as the case of (non-Arab) Iran made clear, popular upheavals in Arab countries always end in militant Islamism. Mubarak will appear as having been a much lesser evil – better to stick with the devil you know than to play around with emancipation. Against such cynicism, one should remain unconditionally faithful to the radical-emancipatory core of the Egypt uprising.

    But one should also avoid the temptation of the narcissism of the lost cause: it’s too easy to admire the sublime beauty of uprisings doomed to fail. Today’s left faces the problem of ‘determinate negation’: what new order should replace the old one after the uprising, when the sublime enthusiasm of the first moment is over? In this context, the manifesto of the Spanish indignados, issued after their demonstrations in May, is revealing. The first thing that meets the eye is the pointedly apolitical tone: ‘Some of us consider ourselves progressive, others conservative. Some of us are believers, some not. Some of us have clearly defined ideologies, others are apolitical, but we are all concerned and angry about the political, economic and social outlook that we see around us: corruption among politicians, businessmen, bankers, leaving us helpless, without a voice.’ They make their protest on behalf of the ‘inalienable truths that we should abide by in our society: the right to housing, employment, culture, health, education, political participation, free personal development and consumer rights for a healthy and happy life.’ Rejecting violence, they call for an ‘ethical revolution. Instead of placing money above human beings, we shall put it back to our service. We are people, not products. I am not a product of what I buy, why I buy and who I buy from.’ Who will be the agents of this revolution? The indignados dismiss the entire political class, right and left, as corrupt and controlled by a lust for power, yet the manifesto nevertheless consists of a series of demands addressed at – whom? Not the people themselves: the indignados do not (yet) claim that no one else will do it for them, that they themselves have to be the change they want to see. And this is the fatal weakness of recent protests: they express an authentic rage which is not able to transform itself into a positive programme of sociopolitical change. They express a spirit of revolt without revolution.

    The situation in Greece looks more promising, probably owing to the recent tradition of progressive self-organisation (which disappeared in Spain after the fall of the Franco regime). But even in Greece, the protest movement displays the limits of self-organisation: protesters sustain a space of egalitarian freedom with no central authority to regulate it, a public space where all are allotted the same amount of time to speak and so on. When the protesters started to debate what to do next, how to move beyond mere protest, the majority consensus was that what was needed was not a new party or a direct attempt to take state power, but a movement whose aim is to exert pressure on political parties. This is clearly not enough to impose a reorganisation of social life. To do that, one needs a strong body able to reach quick decisions and to implement them with all necessary harshness.


    19:46   <zizo>: hugs could pimp u into sex

    Quote from: yeezevee
    well I am neither ex-Muslim nor absolute 100% Non-Muslim.. I am fucking Zebra

  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #458 - August 20, 2011, 06:23 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs9mKetZFQk

    In the heat of the summer
    When the pavements were burning
    The soul of a city was ravaged in the night
    After the city sun was sinkin'

    Now no one knows how it started
    why the windows were shattered
    But deep in the dark, someone set the spark
    And then it no longer mattered.

    Down the streets they were rumbling
    All the tempers were ragin
    Oh, where, oh, where are the white silver tongues
    Who forgot to listen to the warnings?

    On and On come the angry
    No longer following reason
    And all the stores were the target now
    Where just the other day they were buyin

    Drunk with the memory of the ghetto
    Drunk with the lure of the looting
    And the memory of the uniforms shoving with their sticks
    Asking, "Are you looking for trouble?"

    "No, no, no," moaned the mayor.
    "It's not the way of the order.
    "Oh stay in your homes, please leave us alone
    "We'll be glad to talk in the morning."

    "For shame, for shame," wrote the papers.
    "Why the hurry to your hunger?
    "Now the rubble's resting on your broken streets
    "So you see what your rage has unraveled."

    Baricades sadly were risin
    Bricks were heavily flyin
    And the loudspeaker drowned like a whisperin' sound
    when compared to the angered emotions

    And when the fury was over
    And the Shame was replacing the anger.
    So wrong, so wrong, but we've been down so long
    And we had to make somebody listen
    In the heat of the summer......   

    Dear Fellow Ex-Muslim, Hell doesn't exist. It's an absurd & wicked fiction. You're not a bad person for rejecting something that's cruel, irrational, unjust & lacks evidence. You have nothing to fear. Nothing to feel ashamed about. Enjoy your life. Do the best you can. Make yourself & others happy.
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #459 - August 20, 2011, 07:26 PM

    Žižek is freakin’ awesome. And very contradictory at times. I’m still struggling my way through two of his books. He tries to filter everything through a Lacan/Hegel/Marx prism. He has extremely lucid and thought–provoking moments amongst all the mindfuckery though.

    Interesting that he writes: “But one should also avoid the temptation of the narcissism of the lost cause: it’s too easy to admire the sublime beauty of uprisings doomed to fail.” Did he not pen a book called In Defence of Lost Causes?!

    It is a very clear article he has written here, though, and I am extremely impressed. I came across a lot of his topics in this article, but they shone through with absolute clarity. In particular I liked this description:

    “[T]he problem with the riots is not the violence as such, but the fact that the violence is not truly self-assertive. It is impotent rage and despair masked as a display of force; it is envy masked as triumphant carnival.”

  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #460 - August 26, 2011, 04:13 PM

    The rioters aren't deprived, why are the left so busy trying to make excuses for these people, they ran amuck and stole whatever they could lay their hands on. In doing so they murdered people, burnt down their homes and ruined small businesses. They behaved like beasts.

    They didn't appear out of thin air, they've always been there, making people lives a misery, smashing windows, damaging people cars, intimidating the old and the vulnerable, this time they saw the chance to do it en-masse.

    Arthur.
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #461 - August 26, 2011, 04:15 PM

    The rioters aren't deprived, why are the left so busy trying to make excuses for these people, they ran amuck and stole whatever they could lay their hands on. In doing so they murdered people, burnt down their homes and ruined small businesses. They behaved like beasts.

    They didn't appear out of thin air, they've always been there, making people lives a misery, smashing windows, damaging people cars, intimidating the old and the vulnerable, this time they saw the chance to do it en-masse.

    Arthur.


    yeh send em back to their own countries thats what i say

    Formerly known as Iblis
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #462 - August 26, 2011, 04:26 PM

    What countries would that be then?

    Arthur.
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #463 - August 26, 2011, 04:27 PM

    dunno AFRICA? haha

    England for da ENGLISH!

    yeh

    Formerly known as Iblis
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #464 - August 26, 2011, 04:34 PM

    Are you for real? Why would you say such a silly thing.

    Arthur.
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #465 - September 01, 2011, 12:50 PM

    Quote
    "What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

    - Plato, 4BC


    Teach us to care and not to care / Teach us to sit still.
    What do we live for; if it is not to make life less difficult to each other
    You are the music while the music lasts.
    T.S.Eliot
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #466 - September 01, 2011, 01:45 PM

    Plato was an idiot.

    "Everyone must leave something behind when he dies, my grandfather said. A child or a book or a painting or a house or a wall built or a pair of shoes made. Or a garden planted. Something your hand touched some way so your soul has somewhere to go when you die..." - Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #467 - September 01, 2011, 01:45 PM

    Plato was an idiot.


    Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

    07:54 <harakaat>: you must be jema
    07:54 <harakaat>: considering how annoying you are
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #468 - September 01, 2011, 02:13 PM




    Yep, also one of my favorite quotes when people get conservative and decrying the state of youth and pining for the never-existed "good old days"

    fuck you
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #469 - September 01, 2011, 05:20 PM

    True, but for a while there there was an actual lack of such large scale rioting where people were getting killed in the UK. So in that sense it was "the good old days".
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #470 - September 02, 2011, 01:49 AM

    Yeah, about 30 years. 30 years too long.

    fuck you
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #471 - September 02, 2011, 01:50 AM

    It's safe to say cops, politicians, corporations and their armies have killed more people than rioters ever will. Yet the people who complain about the riots are silent about them. Hypocrisy, media compliance, double-standardness, ignorance. Cry me a fucking river. We all saw it coming.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo

    "Everyone must leave something behind when he dies, my grandfather said. A child or a book or a painting or a house or a wall built or a pair of shoes made. Or a garden planted. Something your hand touched some way so your soul has somewhere to go when you die..." - Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #472 - September 02, 2011, 02:31 AM

    Plato was an idiot.


    Plato was a god.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #473 - September 02, 2011, 02:36 AM

    Is that a challenge for a debate?

    "Everyone must leave something behind when he dies, my grandfather said. A child or a book or a painting or a house or a wall built or a pair of shoes made. Or a garden planted. Something your hand touched some way so your soul has somewhere to go when you die..." - Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #474 - September 02, 2011, 02:43 AM

    I hate debates, but I'd love a discussion Smiley

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #475 - September 02, 2011, 02:50 AM

     Afro

    I would like to discuss the allegory of the cave and his concept of the Ideal form. Needless to say, I vehemently disagree with both. I will try to have something prepared by tomorrow.

    "Everyone must leave something behind when he dies, my grandfather said. A child or a book or a painting or a house or a wall built or a pair of shoes made. Or a garden planted. Something your hand touched some way so your soul has somewhere to go when you die..." - Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #476 - September 02, 2011, 02:51 AM

    awesome, I am in eager anticipation, needless to say, Plato is one of my greatest teachers Smiley

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #477 - September 02, 2011, 09:02 AM

    It's safe to say cops, politicians, corporations and their armies have killed more people than rioters ever will. Yet the people who complain about the riots are silent about them. Hypocrisy, media compliance, double-standardness, ignorance. Cry me a fucking river. We all saw it coming.


    Power to the people!

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #478 - September 02, 2011, 01:50 PM

    Don't be condescending.

    "Everyone must leave something behind when he dies, my grandfather said. A child or a book or a painting or a house or a wall built or a pair of shoes made. Or a garden planted. Something your hand touched some way so your soul has somewhere to go when you die..." - Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
  • Re: Riots in London
     Reply #479 - September 02, 2011, 01:55 PM


    Finger wagging of straw men and zero sum irrelevances for rhetorical excitement over an event in which ordinary, innocent people, not state institutions or organisations, lost their lives, their homes, their property, their livelihoods, is condescending.

    Not saying, 'power to the people!' Afro

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Previous page 1 ... 14 15 1617 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »