Search:

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;867968]Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh, I'm a fan of good political banter and I can get heated and a bit aggressive sometimes. I've also called Ash a bootlicker probably like 100 times over the last week and he's a good friend so it's mostly in good fun.

I truly don't hate Ganelon and I don't think he should be banned or anything lmao. I think we disagree on things, even a lot of things, and I truly think he can do better in a lot of ways, but he doesn't deserve hate for it.

Should we come to an understanding about that at least, and put things behind us rather than thinking everyone else is an asshole?[/QUOTE]

<3

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh, I'm a fan of good political banter and I can get heated and a bit aggressive sometimes. I've also called Ash a bootlicker probably like 100 times over the last week and he's a good friend so it's mostly in good fun.

I truly don't hate Ganelon and I don't think he should be banned or anything lmao. I think we disagree on things, even a lot of things, and I truly think he can do better in a lot of ways, but he doesn't deserve hate for it.

Should we come to an understanding about that at least, and put things behind us rather than thinking everyone else is an asshole?

<3

Ceko's right. If your objective is to change Ganelon's mind, you're doing a terrible job of it. If your objective is to "own racists", you're kind of an asshole who's pushing someone deeper down their political rabbit hole to feel good about yourself lol. Your objective definitely ain't to hear what he says lol.

Ceko's right. If your objective is to change Ganelon's mind, you're doing a terrible job of it. If your objective is to "own racists", you're kind of an asshole who's pushing someone deeper down their political rabbit hole to feel good about yourself lol. Your objective definitely ain't to hear what he says lol.

[QUOTE=Frinckles;867580]Have I experienced racism? Sure. I've experienced "white privilege" too lol. And maybe I'm not invested enough. I just want people to be awesome to eahother. And why shouldn't we?[/QUOTE]

NO PICK A SIDE YOU FUCKING PUSSY

Originally Posted by Frinckles

Have I experienced racism? Sure. I've experienced "white privilege" too lol. And maybe I'm not invested enough. I just want people to be awesome to eahother. And why shouldn't we?

NO PICK A SIDE YOU FUCKING PUSSY

[QUOTE=theoneceko;867558]bro im theexact opposite of u. i always rrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee online but irl, i'm as cooll as a cuwucumber in december

aaaaaaaaaaaack u seem like u've life figured out uwu. i'm so jelly ;W;[/QUOTE]

That might be the better way to be. Use online as the outlet. Idek tbh lol T_T

Originally Posted by theoneceko

bro im theexact opposite of u. i always rrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee online but irl, i'm as cooll as a cuwucumber in december

aaaaaaaaaaaack u seem like u've life figured out uwu. i'm so jelly ;W;

That might be the better way to be. Use online as the outlet. Idek tbh lol T_T

Sorry I'm a hypocrite and I'm spewing pages but i really wanna add one more thing. I don't think these sorts of points about race make someone a racist. You see the 100m on TV, you think "hmm I wonder if that generalizes to anything else" and then you make some hypotheses about Asians being better at academics and whatnot. There's problematic undertones that should be addressed but I hear a lot of older people say that sort of thing with no ill intent. I think it's very uncharitable to label them as "racist or wilfully ignorant". Everyone is ignorant about some very important subject. Making out like they're choosing that is unfair.

Sorry I'm a hypocrite and I'm spewing pages but i really wanna add one more thing. I don't think these sorts of points about race make someone a racist. You see the 100m on TV, you think "hmm I wonder if that generalizes to anything else" and then you make some hypotheses about Asians being better at academics and whatnot. There's problematic undertones that should be addressed but I hear a lot of older people say that sort of thing with no ill intent. I think it's very uncharitable to label them as "racist or wilfully ignorant". Everyone is ignorant about some very important subject. Making out like they're choosing that is unfair.

I'll stop now :P

I'll stop now :P

People can have honest conversations about whether there is reason to believe people of different "races" can have a statistical tendency towards different mental features. (Though "race" is not a well-defined clade like "german shepherds" and is more of a human construct so some care needs to be taken). It is obviously well established that some "races" tend to have slightly different physical attributes at the margins, as illustrated by black people crushing it at the 100m during every Olympics.

The issue comes from "scientific racism", however. Academia has a long and painful legacy of using bogus biology to try and justify racism by measuring skull sizes and shit to try and "prove" certain races have "inherently inferior intellect" and whatnot. As a result, trying to research into such things has become, with good reason, highly contentious. However, it is at least understood that any differences would be very subtle and only noticable at the margins, like with the 100m race.

People can have honest conversations about whether there is reason to believe people of different "races" can have a statistical tendency towards different mental features. (Though "race" is not a well-defined clade like "german shepherds" and is more of a human construct so some care needs to be taken). It is obviously well established that some "races" tend to have slightly different physical attributes at the margins, as illustrated by black people crushing it at the 100m during every Olympics.

The issue comes from "scientific racism", however. Academia has a long and painful legacy of using bogus biology to try and justify racism by measuring skull sizes and shit to try and "prove" certain races have "inherently inferior intellect" and whatnot. As a result, trying to research into such things has become, with good reason, highly contentious. However, it is at least understood that any differences would be very subtle and only noticable at the margins, like with the 100m race.

Obama managing to get elected president really doesn't say a whole lot about how much racism there is in America. That's like trying to suggest anti-semitism wasn't rampant in late 19th century Britain because Benjamin Disraeli managed to get elected Prime Minister. Individuals in an unfair system can overcome the specificities of their situation through a shittonne of luck and talent.

Also, I assume by "0.3 correlation" you mean 0.3 using the regression correlation coefficient. 0.3 is an extremely weak correlation. That corresponds to an extremely chaotic placement of dots on a graph that your formula tells you happens to look vaguely like a positively sloped line if you squint hard enough. Furthermore, the correlation between intelligence, a subjective and ambiguous concept in the first place, and income is already a very tenuous relationship. Trying to go IQ -> income -> intelligence is very bad science.

Obama managing to get elected president really doesn't say a whole lot about how much racism there is in America. That's like trying to suggest anti-semitism wasn't rampant in late 19th century Britain because Benjamin Disraeli managed to get elected Prime Minister. Individuals in an unfair system can overcome the specificities of their situation through a shittonne of luck and talent.

Also, I assume by "0.3 correlation" you mean 0.3 using the regression correlation coefficient. 0.3 is an extremely weak correlation. That corresponds to an extremely chaotic placement of dots on a graph that your formula tells you happens to look vaguely like a positively sloped line if you squint hard enough. Furthermore, the correlation between intelligence, a subjective and ambiguous concept in the first place, and income is already a very tenuous relationship. Trying to go IQ -> income -> intelligence is very bad science.

[QUOTE=Ganelon;867477]Oh, no, I wasn’t claiming they did lol. I doubt most people on this website want that.
When I target BLM and attack them I’m specifically attacking the movement itself - organizers, activists, etc - not the people here. I hope nobody is taking my comments as personal attacks because they are not meant as such. That would be quite rich anyways because of how much I fight against personal attacks lol.

In any event, you are probably right in that some police brutality does exist. I guess that the temptation is to deny it exists at all when faced with arguments you believe to be either a) immoral or b) completely wrong.

btw, off-topic but yzb, you are probably the strangest far-left winger I know lol. I’m not saying this as an insult, I just find it interesting because even attitude wise you are pretty different from what I would consider your average radical leftist. Like in many cases I just see them hating the rich instead of loving poor, but I don’t see that here. You’re probably aware of this but if you’re interested in someone who is also left wing and erm, not authoritarian (but still far left), you should check out Slavoj Zizek. He is also a strange left winger, so strange that I don’t even understand his views.[/QUOTE]

I know Zizek. He's pretty cool. Also I don't think I'm as different as you think from other leftists honestly. Typing behind a monitor allows you to give a much more level-headed and thoughtful response to people's points. If I type rage I know I'm just being self-indulgent. That doesn't apply in real life, where I can be just as edgy as any other leftist. Elements of my ideology necessarily imply that there is continual, gross injustice perpetuated at all times due to political and economic power being concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals who possess goals irreconcilable with the rest of society, and whose power is inherently exploitative. Noone who acknowledges that can keep a level head about it at all times, unless they're super chill like Zizek.

However, I don't hate anyone. And, in my experience, the vast majority of radical leftists don't hate anyone. Hateful people are everywhere, and partisan news outlets like Fox News and MSNBC are going to cherry pick examples of hateful people from the other side and show them 24/7. However, my ideology also necessarily implies that there is nothing inherently evil in people who continually exploit others through their economic power, because the capitalist system we live in necessitates that we all continually exploit one another to preserve our current state. Radical leftists may get angry at times or say stupid things at times - trying to find people to blame is human nature, ultimately. But the issue is the system, not billionaires.

tl;dr we don't hate rich people so pls stop misrepping us because Fox News made that up :P

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Oh, no, I wasn’t claiming they did lol. I doubt most people on this website want that.
When I target BLM and attack them I’m specifically attacking the movement itself - organizers, activists, etc - not the people here. I hope nobody is taking my comments as personal attacks because they are not meant as such. That would be quite rich anyways because of how much I fight against personal attacks lol.

In any event, you are probably right in that some police brutality does exist. I guess that the temptation is to deny it exists at all when faced with arguments you believe to be either a) immoral or b) completely wrong.

btw, off-topic but yzb, you are probably the strangest far-left winger I know lol. I’m not saying this as an insult, I just find it interesting because even attitude wise you are pretty different from what I would consider your average radical leftist. Like in many cases I just see them hating the rich instead of loving poor, but I don’t see that here. You’re probably aware of this but if you’re interested in someone who is also left wing and erm, not authoritarian (but still far left), you should check out Slavoj Zizek. He is also a strange left winger, so strange that I don’t even understand his views.

I know Zizek. He's pretty cool. Also I don't think I'm as different as you think from other leftists honestly. Typing behind a monitor allows you to give a much more level-headed and thoughtful response to people's points. If I type rage I know I'm just being self-indulgent. That doesn't apply in real life, where I can be just as edgy as any other leftist. Elements of my ideology necessarily imply that there is continual, gross injustice perpetuated at all times due to political and economic power being concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals who possess goals irreconcilable with the rest of society, and whose power is inherently exploitative. Noone who acknowledges that can keep a level head about it at all times, unless they're super chill like Zizek.

However, I don't hate anyone. And, in my experience, the vast majority of radical leftists don't hate anyone. Hateful people are everywhere, and partisan news outlets like Fox News and MSNBC are going to cherry pick examples of hateful people from the other side and show them 24/7. However, my ideology also necessarily implies that there is nothing inherently evil in people who continually exploit others through their economic power, because the capitalist system we live in necessitates that we all continually exploit one another to preserve our current state. Radical leftists may get angry at times or say stupid things at times - trying to find people to blame is human nature, ultimately. But the issue is the system, not billionaires.

tl;dr we don't hate rich people so pls stop misrepping us because Fox News made that up :P

[QUOTE=secondpassing;867411]Saying Black Lives Matter comes with the cost of alienating support from other minority groups. Well-intentioned, but it sets this racial group apart from Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Malaysians, Columbians, and whatever other groups. We are people, so treat people well.[/QUOTE]

It's a divisive choice in phrasing. Divisive language tends to get elevated. A lot like "privilege". I never liked that phrase, either.

Originally Posted by secondpassing

Saying Black Lives Matter comes with the cost of alienating support from other minority groups. Well-intentioned, but it sets this racial group apart from Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Malaysians, Columbians, and whatever other groups. We are people, so treat people well.

It's a divisive choice in phrasing. Divisive language tends to get elevated. A lot like "privilege". I never liked that phrase, either.

[QUOTE=Ganelon;867293]The thing is, with MLK racism was actually still a problem in America. Do I agrree with everything he said? No, but I think that at least his protest had some merit, I mean, segregation still existed back then. With regards to revolutions throughout history - perhaps I misspoke when I said the regime had to be a totalitarian one. But it would have to be autocratic in some form or fashion, and there’s really no evidence to suggest that this is the case in America. Especially seeing as police killed more people under Obama. And it was in Obama’s interest for police to kill as few black people as possible, so I don’t think police killing more people back then had anything to do with him being president. Frankly I don’t know if it has something to with Trump being president now, either.

Can you give me an example of when violence was justified in overthrowing a monarchy? The only example I can think of would be the glorious revolution, but that’s debatable; Cromwell was tyrannical. Certainly no the French Revolution. I guess you could see the American Revolution as one, and rightly so; though in that case it was more of a war for independence than a revolution.

Like hear me out here I don’t disagree with what you have to say but I think it isn’t at all unreasonable to state that this kind of violence isn’t warranted. Police brutality isn’t as widespread as it is usually claimed, and when it does happen the policemen involved are charged, as was the case here. Should people be allowed to protest peacefully? Yes, and they are being allowed. I’m Washington DC, the National Guard hasn’t done much after the violent rioters were subdued. Now that’s the kind of protest I want to see. I don’t agree with it, because it really isn’t clear that police brutality is as serious as it is usually claimed, but so be it, I don’t have to agree with them.

Finally, it really isn’t just me here. Many notable people are concerned with the spread of radical ideologies in the West; go against the flow and you get labeled a white nationalist or a far right nutbag.
Do I think it’s wrong for people to be concerned about racism? No, you should be concerned about it, but this has gone above and beyond at this point. Why do you think the concept of white guilt exists? Yeah, white people have done some terrible things in the past, but - look at South Africa. They had the Apartheid and were definitely a repressive, racist regime. But now the African National Congress is more or less oppressing the white farmers now... I mean, there’s been plenty of incidents where black politicians there spouted VERY violent rhetoric directed at the white populace (and also cases where white politicians did that; RSA is a very racist country). My point is, the way forward isn’t for ‘white’ people to be forced to acknowledge some bizarre guilt resulting from their skin colour. It never is. What needs to happen, and the US has done far more towards this goal than most (all?) other countries, is that people need to be treated the same regardless of skin colour. No more of this ‘white privilege’ or ‘white guilt’ bs.[/QUOTE]

Violence being used to overthrow a monarchy is always justified. The groups or individuals involved in the overthrow are often deeply flawed themselves (you rightly acknowledge Cromwell as a tyrant) and indulge in gratuitous violence (like the french revolution) but that doesn't really change the fact that monarchies are inherently unjust and, if they do not relinquish their power by their own will, then the only choice left is violent resistance. Not all monarchs were evil. Some were very good people. However, that does not fundamentally change the fact that monarchy is an inherently unjust system. And even if the current monarch is great, the next could be a total psychopath. Hence, violent resistance against even the kindest monarch is still totally justified.

Even if the state is "nice" by our contemporary standards, that does not exempt them from violent resistance. As I said on the other thread, the state's legitimacy stems from a social contract. They have a set of responsibilities including protecting the citizenry and respecting their rights. If they are failing these responsibilities, the social contract cracks. If they fail these responsibilities and cling to power regardless, then the duty of the citizenry to obey also cracks. And, as I tried to convey in the previous post, all serious political change is backed by violence, even if only implicitly. Though doing it officially through purely state mechanisms is "tidier", that isn't always an option. And we shouldn't over-value doing things through purely state violence - violence is still violence.

Anyway, though you seem to think police brutality is much less widespread than I do, does it ultimately matter? Police needlessly kill and/or life-threateningly assault unarmed civillians, and get off scott-free in court, sometimes even if they are [I]filmed[/I] doing it. How many times that's happening doesn't change the fact it's happening. The reforms actually proposed by Campaign Zero have little to do with shaming white people or enacting vengeance on police. The majority of their proposals are race neutral policies designed to increase the accountability of the police and integrate them with the community. The ones that aren't race neutral are shit like "pls hire black cops" and "talk to black people" - things you can probably agree are healthy proposals irrespective of the extent of systemic racism. [url]https://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision[/url]

That said though, I recommend you take a more thorough look at the WaPo database you cited in your first post. The project started because the FBI was missing most police shootings - many police departments literally aren't reporting the shootings they're doing. The database finds blacks are massively disproportionately killed by police in shootings, even when we control for just unarmed citizens. There is really no reason to ever shoot an unarmed citizen unless they're built like Arnold Schwarzenegger and are trying to crush your skull with their bare hands. I also don't want to narrow the discourse to only shootings, though they certainly matter. The police in the USA widely use unnecessary force, verbally taunt citizens, and frequently spontaneously assault people who piss them off but pose no actual physical threat.

We can spend all day bickering about statistics. But honestly, the endless footage of police using undue force is probably longer than all of Game of Thrones. It speaks for itself. Again, I'm really not sure how much police brutality is needed to gain this coveted title of "widespread", or whether gaining that title even matters. And obviously a sample bias takes place where footage only showing the worst of the police rises to the top, but it should also be remembered that the vast majority of cases of police brutality are probably not caught on camera. And that police are becoming more cautious in the age of information not to become a news sensation on camera - irrespective of what they do when a camera isn't pointed on them. What is caught on camera is the cases of police so violent and entitled they don't even care that they're being filmed - and they also happen to be getting filmed.

Also mate, though I find many of your views god-awful from where I'm standing on the far-left, I respect that you continue to bravely vouch for your perspective and engage with us about it. I honestly would be much quieter about my perspective on rioting if I was on a site where everyone was like "wtf yzb I can't believe you think rioting can be justified. Do you support terrorists too? You're basically pro-Al Qaeda bro". Though in defense of Al Qae-

Originally Posted by Ganelon

The thing is, with MLK racism was actually still a problem in America. Do I agrree with everything he said? No, but I think that at least his protest had some merit, I mean, segregation still existed back then. With regards to revolutions throughout history - perhaps I misspoke when I said the regime had to be a totalitarian one. But it would have to be autocratic in some form or fashion, and there’s really no evidence to suggest that this is the case in America. Especially seeing as police killed more people under Obama. And it was in Obama’s interest for police to kill as few black people as possible, so I don’t think police killing more people back then had anything to do with him being president. Frankly I don’t know if it has something to with Trump being president now, either.

Can you give me an example of when violence was justified in overthrowing a monarchy? The only example I can think of would be the glorious revolution, but that’s debatable; Cromwell was tyrannical. Certainly no the French Revolution. I guess you could see the American Revolution as one, and rightly so; though in that case it was more of a war for independence than a revolution.

Like hear me out here I don’t disagree with what you have to say but I think it isn’t at all unreasonable to state that this kind of violence isn’t warranted. Police brutality isn’t as widespread as it is usually claimed, and when it does happen the policemen involved are charged, as was the case here. Should people be allowed to protest peacefully? Yes, and they are being allowed. I’m Washington DC, the National Guard hasn’t done much after the violent rioters were subdued. Now that’s the kind of protest I want to see. I don’t agree with it, because it really isn’t clear that police brutality is as serious as it is usually claimed, but so be it, I don’t have to agree with them.

Finally, it really isn’t just me here. Many notable people are concerned with the spread of radical ideologies in the West; go against the flow and you get labeled a white nationalist or a far right nutbag.
Do I think it’s wrong for people to be concerned about racism? No, you should be concerned about it, but this has gone above and beyond at this point. Why do you think the concept of white guilt exists? Yeah, white people have done some terrible things in the past, but - look at South Africa. They had the Apartheid and were definitely a repressive, racist regime. But now the African National Congress is more or less oppressing the white farmers now... I mean, there’s been plenty of incidents where black politicians there spouted VERY violent rhetoric directed at the white populace (and also cases where white politicians did that; RSA is a very racist country). My point is, the way forward isn’t for ‘white’ people to be forced to acknowledge some bizarre guilt resulting from their skin colour. It never is. What needs to happen, and the US has done far more towards this goal than most (all?) other countries, is that people need to be treated the same regardless of skin colour. No more of this ‘white privilege’ or ‘white guilt’ bs.

Violence being used to overthrow a monarchy is always justified. The groups or individuals involved in the overthrow are often deeply flawed themselves (you rightly acknowledge Cromwell as a tyrant) and indulge in gratuitous violence (like the french revolution) but that doesn't really change the fact that monarchies are inherently unjust and, if they do not relinquish their power by their own will, then the only choice left is violent resistance. Not all monarchs were evil. Some were very good people. However, that does not fundamentally change the fact that monarchy is an inherently unjust system. And even if the current monarch is great, the next could be a total psychopath. Hence, violent resistance against even the kindest monarch is still totally justified.

Even if the state is "nice" by our contemporary standards, that does not exempt them from violent resistance. As I said on the other thread, the state's legitimacy stems from a social contract. They have a set of responsibilities including protecting the citizenry and respecting their rights. If they are failing these responsibilities, the social contract cracks. If they fail these responsibilities and cling to power regardless, then the duty of the citizenry to obey also cracks. And, as I tried to convey in the previous post, all serious political change is backed by violence, even if only implicitly. Though doing it officially through purely state mechanisms is "tidier", that isn't always an option. And we shouldn't over-value doing things through purely state violence - violence is still violence.

Anyway, though you seem to think police brutality is much less widespread than I do, does it ultimately matter? Police needlessly kill and/or life-threateningly assault unarmed civillians, and get off scott-free in court, sometimes even if they are filmed doing it. How many times that's happening doesn't change the fact it's happening. The reforms actually proposed by Campaign Zero have little to do with shaming white people or enacting vengeance on police. The majority of their proposals are race neutral policies designed to increase the accountability of the police and integrate them with the community. The ones that aren't race neutral are shit like "pls hire black cops" and "talk to black people" - things you can probably agree are healthy proposals irrespective of the extent of systemic racism. https://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

That said though, I recommend you take a more thorough look at the WaPo database you cited in your first post. The project started because the FBI was missing most police shootings - many police departments literally aren't reporting the shootings they're doing. The database finds blacks are massively disproportionately killed by police in shootings, even when we control for just unarmed citizens. There is really no reason to ever shoot an unarmed citizen unless they're built like Arnold Schwarzenegger and are trying to crush your skull with their bare hands. I also don't want to narrow the discourse to only shootings, though they certainly matter. The police in the USA widely use unnecessary force, verbally taunt citizens, and frequently spontaneously assault people who piss them off but pose no actual physical threat.

We can spend all day bickering about statistics. But honestly, the endless footage of police using undue force is probably longer than all of Game of Thrones. It speaks for itself. Again, I'm really not sure how much police brutality is needed to gain this coveted title of "widespread", or whether gaining that title even matters. And obviously a sample bias takes place where footage only showing the worst of the police rises to the top, but it should also be remembered that the vast majority of cases of police brutality are probably not caught on camera. And that police are becoming more cautious in the age of information not to become a news sensation on camera - irrespective of what they do when a camera isn't pointed on them. What is caught on camera is the cases of police so violent and entitled they don't even care that they're being filmed - and they also happen to be getting filmed.

Also mate, though I find many of your views god-awful from where I'm standing on the far-left, I respect that you continue to bravely vouch for your perspective and engage with us about it. I honestly would be much quieter about my perspective on rioting if I was on a site where everyone was like "wtf yzb I can't believe you think rioting can be justified. Do you support terrorists too? You're basically pro-Al Qaeda bro". Though in defense of Al Qae-

[QUOTE=Ganelon;867268]Violence is not a medium of communication. I would only see riots in this scale being justified in case of a genocide or a totalitarian regime taking over, which btw is not the case.[/QUOTE]

This puts you at odds with a long list of history's illegal and sometimes even violent protests that were still, in my opinion at least, justified - even if they weren't protesting Hitler or Stalin. That list includes the suffragettes, the ANC, civil rights groups, and many major revolutions and civil wars that finalized the transition from monarchy to democracy (and I really don't think it's fair to conflate all monarchies with "totalitarian regime"). It also puts you at odds with the stonewall riots that the gay pride parade is effectively an anniversary of.

Peaceful resistance isn't always an option. MLK only pulled it off because he made a point of sending his protesters to the most racist parts of the country where they would get ruthlessly attacked for simply peacefully demonstrating, so that he could get national coverage. He even intentionally featured children in his protests, knowing they would get attacked. Though he's held up as the quintessential example of non-violent resistance, his protests were ironically catered to facilitate violence. And all of this was only possible because the media gave him coverage (when the protesters were attacked).

It would be nice to live in a world where we could get everything done by signing petitions, but the power to bring change through purely peaceful means is a blessing conferred upon very few, if truly anyone at all. Indeed, carrying out change through the state itself constitutes violence. People who are imprisoned for refusing to accept black clients are having violence used against them - if they resist imprisonment, they are physically forced to comply. Taxation is effectively theft, and anyone who opposes taxation in principle may suffer arrest for peacefully refusing to pay. Indeed, the state itself is ultimately a massive institution primarily tasked with carrying out violence in the most ordely and even-handed manner possible to keep society running.

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Violence is not a medium of communication. I would only see riots in this scale being justified in case of a genocide or a totalitarian regime taking over, which btw is not the case.

This puts you at odds with a long list of history's illegal and sometimes even violent protests that were still, in my opinion at least, justified - even if they weren't protesting Hitler or Stalin. That list includes the suffragettes, the ANC, civil rights groups, and many major revolutions and civil wars that finalized the transition from monarchy to democracy (and I really don't think it's fair to conflate all monarchies with "totalitarian regime"). It also puts you at odds with the stonewall riots that the gay pride parade is effectively an anniversary of.

Peaceful resistance isn't always an option. MLK only pulled it off because he made a point of sending his protesters to the most racist parts of the country where they would get ruthlessly attacked for simply peacefully demonstrating, so that he could get national coverage. He even intentionally featured children in his protests, knowing they would get attacked. Though he's held up as the quintessential example of non-violent resistance, his protests were ironically catered to facilitate violence. And all of this was only possible because the media gave him coverage (when the protesters were attacked).

It would be nice to live in a world where we could get everything done by signing petitions, but the power to bring change through purely peaceful means is a blessing conferred upon very few, if truly anyone at all. Indeed, carrying out change through the state itself constitutes violence. People who are imprisoned for refusing to accept black clients are having violence used against them - if they resist imprisonment, they are physically forced to comply. Taxation is effectively theft, and anyone who opposes taxation in principle may suffer arrest for peacefully refusing to pay. Indeed, the state itself is ultimately a massive institution primarily tasked with carrying out violence in the most ordely and even-handed manner possible to keep society running.