Critical Miss: Riotous Anger

[Lullabye]

Do you actually own a megaman choker? Cus thats awesome.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

The worst of the riots have died down now, it's now the time to start looking at why these riots kicked off in the first place. Our out of touch government has already started their finger wagging. 'Gang culture' and the 'moral decay' of our society are being spouted as the sole reason for the violence. If you attempt to express any dissenting view then you're shouted down as trying to support or justify the rioting. Just look at the House of Commons debates on the subject to see what I mean. Anybody who says 'maybe we shouldn't just blame the riotters? Maybe there's more to this' is thought to be defending the riots instead of someone who's just asking a legitimate question.

So I hope you can understand my frustration. The comic just comes across as being rather misinformed. I can see it's point, and I don't entirely disagree. But it seemed like it was trying to offer just as many easy answers as the government is.

It's the easiest thing in the world to write the riotters off as brazen, animalistic savages. Just like it's the easiest thing in the world to blame video game violence, or the moral decay of society, or the government. This is an extremely complicated issue, you can't just write it off as 'see that guy with a cinderblock smashing the window of a shop? Yeah, that guy. He's to blame.' There's a lot more to it than that.

What were the racial demographics of the riots? No one seems to be asking that question, probably because they're afraid that they'll be labeled a racist, but it's an important question. I'm a yank and I'm all for immigration. But that's because America is 1) founded on immigrants (except for the unfortunate case of the Native Americans), and 2) there's plenty of room for everyone.

That really isn't the case in Europe, especially the UK. If the rioters are largely immigrant populations and are rioting because their condition is poor, then you clearly need to be more conservative with your immigration policies. If you can't support that many people then don't let them in. Not to mention that you need to preserve your own culture too, you shouldn't be a minority in the country that your ancestors have lived in and fought to protect for thousands of years.

Now if this is just a matter of poverty, then your worries are different, but if the issue has some racial and cultural motivations then you can't just ignore it for the sake of political correctness. A community of immigrants who are isolated racially will be more likely to view the nation and it's government in terms of an "us vs. them" attitude. That isn't good. From what I've heard there was quite a bit of racial tension between blacks and Pakistanis, which also isn't good at all.

You can't let large groups of foreign people segregate themselves off in your country because they will inevitably grow hostile, especially if many of them are there working for minimum wage. Either you have to start granting them more and more benefits to keep them appeased or you'll have to take stricter police measures. Since your economy can't afford to grant these people the benefits they want, I think you should probably let a lot of their visas expire, otherwise you'll have more violence on your hands. It's a shame, but you can't take on other peoples' burdens when your own people are struggling. You'll have to raise taxes and give stimuli to the business sector in order to make up for the loss of cheap labor. But frankly importing tons of foreigners for cheap labor is rather dastardly in the first place, both to your own people who need the jobs, and to the immigrants who are exploited.

 

[Bluecho]

Amen, sister. Amen. *Snaps Fingers*

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If the rioters are largely immigrant populations and are rioting because their condition is poor, then you clearly need to be more conservative with your immigration policies.

Rioters: Indigenous.
Defenders: Indigenous/Polish/Indian/Turkish/Greek.

The large immigrant population of London was mostly defending it. Of the four(?) that died, three were immigrants protecting their livelihood.

I'd suggest researching these points before passing judgment, it might belay a lot of anger.

I'd also be very careful of being associated with the words of David Starkey. Again, a person to research.

 

[gallaetha_matt]

What were the racial demographics of the riots?

You trollin' bro?

Seems to be an equal number of white and black. Most of them UK born. In fact, a lot of the people targeted by rioters were Turkish, Pakistani and Middle Eastern shopkeepers.

No one seems to be asking that question, probably because they're afraid that they'll be labeled a racist, but it's an important question.

Nobody is asking that question because it doesn't need to be asked really. If immigration was as serious a factor as you claim then trust me, we have enough hyper right wing newspapers and pundits over here that would drag it up as a discussion point in every debate.

That really isn't the case in Europe, especially the UK. If the rioters are largely immigrant populations and are rioting because their condition is poor, then you clearly need to be more conservative with your immigration policies. If you can't support that many people then don't let them in. Not to mention that you need to preserve your own culture too, you shouldn't be a minority in the country that your ancestors have lived in and fought to protect for thousands of years.

I'm curious to see if you've ever actually been over to the UK. We aren't in any danger of losing our culture and immigration isn't nearly the problem that the media seems to think it is.

Have I just been trolled? Seriously.

 

[danirax]

you cant blame that guy... he just lost his keys for that shop....

 

[Atmos Duality]

The method of response in a protest is just as important as what you're protesting.

Of course, it's also probable that many of the rioters were just using this as an opportunity to break, burn, and steal shit for fun and profit.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

What were the racial demographics of the riots?

You trollin' bro?

Seems to be an equal number of white and black. Most of them UK born. In fact, a lot of the people targeted by rioters were Turkish, Pakistani and Middle Eastern shopkeepers.

No one seems to be asking that question, probably because they're afraid that they'll be labeled a racist, but it's an important question.

Nobody is asking that question because it doesn't need to be asked really. If immigration was as serious a factor as you claim then trust me, we have enough hyper right wing newspapers and pundits over here that would drag it up as a discussion point in every debate.

That really isn't the case in Europe, especially the UK. If the rioters are largely immigrant populations and are rioting because their condition is poor, then you clearly need to be more conservative with your immigration policies. If you can't support that many people then don't let them in. Not to mention that you need to preserve your own culture too, you shouldn't be a minority in the country that your ancestors have lived in and fought to protect for thousands of years.

I'm curious to see if you've ever actually been over to the UK. We aren't in any danger of losing our culture and immigration isn't nearly the problem that the media seems to think it is.

Have I just been trolled? Seriously.

Not really trolling. I lived in Edinburgh for a year and it didn't seem to be an issue there, but Scotland is a different beast than England. I never claimed that race was the underlying issue, I was just saying that race relations should be one of the things you're looking at. When it comes to riots race is quite often a large contributing factor.

If it is as you say, then race still seems to be an issue, just in the reverse of what I imagined. The indigenous lower class taking out their economic frustrations on immigrants is an extremely common response throughout history. Immigrants make an easy scapegoat. You should have read my post more carefully, because I wasn't blaming the immigrants themselves, I just know that having segregated communities of different races and cultures can become a hotbed of unrest if things aren't going well.

It sounds to me like many of these people have lost their jobs to immigrants and that in combination with loss of benefits like social security has caused a lot of rage. The whole "immigrants taking our jobs" thing is complete nonsense in America because the illegals do backbreaking labor that no sane person would want to do in the first place, like picking berries for instance. The jobs that have been lost have all been caused by outsourcing to countries like India, and the blame for that lies solely on the shoulders of the CEOs who made the decision. I'm not sure how it is in England though, from what I've heard immigrants are actually taking the factory jobs, but that could just be propaganda.

They shouldn't be picking on the immigrant communities. If anything they should have attacked the factory owners and the politicians who want to cut their benefits but refuse to raise taxes.

 

[JoJo]

When you break it all down, the only reason this crap is actually happening is one very simple answer.

People suck.

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

When you break it all down, the only reason this crap is actually happening is one very simple answer.

People suck.

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

 

[Genixma]

While drinking a pint, classy. ^_^

 

[TheAceTheOne]

no no no.


its people = shit.


Im shit, you're shit, that guy [http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/] is shit.

Most of the worlds problems can be attributed to those three words, people equal shit.

Are you a Slipknot fan?

On topic: Comic is right, 100%. Solve the cause after you've solved the problem as best you can.

 

[I-Protest-I]

This post is aimed at anyone in Britain who did not vote, use peaceful protests or use anything in their power except violence to get their view across about the state of things yet still have impassioned views on the PM and such.

Quit your whining. You've done nothing to initiate change and were willfully ignorant in thinking that this wasn't coming, after what has happened during EVERY economic downturn whilst they were in power. Hell, look at the miners who had the shit beat out of them who were actually fighting for the right to work.

Now quit blaming each other, go protest and try impeach the daft twat Cameron and vote for a party that actually means something.

 

[riles481]

Disclaimer: Wall of text and some controversial stuff, I'd appreciate if those who did respond actually took the time to read and understand, thank you.

First things first, I don't entirely disagree with the subject of this Critical Miss, but I do disagree. I've seen a lot of posts on either side in this thread and I would like to respond to them all, but I'll just stick to the main subject.

So anyway, we're supposed to be blaming the rioters themselves right? Especially those who committed murder/manslaughter during the conflict or those who simply took advantage of the chaos and looted for personal greed. This I can and also cannot agree with. I absolutely think those who killed or looted were completely at fault and there is no justification for these actions, but its very dangerous to take the actions of the more general rioters out of context and simply call them "animals" (the comic did not reference this, but several subsequent posts did).

Calling people animals or dehumanizing them in any way is an extremely slippery slope that can lead to very dangerous places, especially if the society is willing to let dehumanizing comments become an acceptable way of referring to certain groups of people such as the rioters.

This argument can lead back to such basic concepts as natural prejudice and even eugenics. What I mean by this is that an argument of a Eugenicist (when there was still such a thing) may be something like "the natural state of a black man is to be a slave, whereas the natural state of a white man is to be a master, this is not only current practice, but biological fact." This argument suggests that Africans were slaves not because they were the victims of conquest and colonialism, but because it was natural for them to be so. They were less human than humans. So leading back to my argument about dehumanization, it is not only simplistic, but also dangerous to dehumanize the rioters as a whole by doing so we assume that those who riot are naturally uncivilized, prone to violence, and need to be ruled with an iron fist (ie., a master-slave relationship). Sound familiar?

Naturally those who did the worst crimes should (and hopefully will) be punished, but as for those who were explosively expressing their rage and fury in response to years of exploitation, prejudice, and hopelessness? They need to be understood on a different level. Logic did not cause these riots and they cannot be viewed through a lens of rational thought, to understand the why we need to be willing to see things on their level or else it can not be truly said that what caused the build up of so many suppressed emotions has been addressed or solved at all.

Concluding my main point, there is no justification for a riot, but there are reasons. These reasons need to be addressed or this will happen again. Not today, not tomorrow, but the cycle will repeat.

Don't believe me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Replace L.A. with London, Rodney King's beating and trail with Mark Duggan's shooting, and the entire thing seems eerily similar.

Also:
George H.W. Bush
Conversely, President Bush argued that the unrest was "purely criminal". Though he acknowledged that the King verdicts were plainly unjust, he maintained that "we simply cannot condone violence as a way of changing the system ... Mob brutality, the total loss of respect for human life was sickeningly sad ... What we saw last night and the night before in Los Angeles is not about civil rights. It's not about the great cause of equality that all Americans must uphold. It's not a message of protest. It's been the brutality of a mob, pure and simple."[59]

vs.

David Cameron
http://in.reuters.com/video/2011/08/11/cameron-recalls-uk-parliament-over-riots?videoId=218214443&videoChannel=117762

19 years and the responses to the riots are virtually identical, I mean you could practically play political Mad Libs with either of these speeches and you'd get the speech that'd be given for NEXT time this happens. The cycle needs to end, and it starts with understanding, not demonizing.

 

[JoJo]

When you break it all down, the only reason this crap is actually happening is one very simple answer.

People suck.

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

Same as I told the other guy, nothing is perfect, that doesn't mean that it sucks though, which is generally used to mean something is overall negative. If you don't mean that, use a different phase next time.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

When you break it all down, the only reason this crap is actually happening is one very simple answer.

People suck.

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

Same as I told the other guy, nothing is perfect, that doesn't mean that it sucks though, which is generally used to mean something is overall negative. If you don't mean that, use a different phase next time.

No, as a rule humanity does kinda suck. It's not entirely bad, but it isn't good either. There's a lot of room for improvement. The only acceptable form of optimism is the optimism that takes pleasure in the struggle for self-overcoming. It is an optimism for what we can become, not about what we already are. Everything else is stagnation and wretched contentment.

 

[Jamous]

Very, very well said. For once someone keeping a decent grasp of the situation.

 

[JoJo]

When you break it all down, the only reason this crap is actually happening is one very simple answer.

People suck.

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

Same as I told the other guy, nothing is perfect, that doesn't mean that it sucks though, which is generally used to mean something is overall negative. If you don't mean that, use a different phase next time.

No, as a rule humanity does kinda suck. It's not entirely bad, but it isn't good either. There's a lot of room for improvement. The only acceptable form of optimism is the optimism that takes pleasure in the struggle for self-overcoming. It is an optimism for what we can become, not about what we already are. Everything else is stagnation and wretched contentment.

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

 

[Arkhangelsk]

there is a way to protest and this is not it. My fellow brits i must ask you:
[HEADING=1]WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!! HAVE YOU NO PRIDE OR HONOUR FOR YOUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN[/HEADING]
been gone for a year and you let the economy go to pot and act like bloody savages!

*thanks for pointing out the typo*

Your avatar just makes the post even more perfect.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

When you break it all down, the only reason this crap is actually happening is one very simple answer.

People suck.

No that's wrong, just a few people suck and ruin it for everyone else. Don't tar us all with the same brush because of the actions of a few idiots, there are about 9 million people in London and just a few thousand rioters in total.

No. People suck. They just suck in different ways. Only some of them riot violently. Others are greedy, hateful, envious or downright ignorant in various other ways. Most are simply apathetic and myopic until things go wrong, and then they swing to the opposite side of the spectrum and become reactionary.

Really? So the person who dedicates much of their life to running a charity for sick children "sucks"? Or the person who takes someone-elses place to die in a concentration camp "sucks"? The person who protests against oppressive regimes at risk to their own life "suck"?

Sure, some people are bad, some are good. That's life and when you grow up a bit more you will realise the benefits of looking on the bright side of life

Umm... you should realize that: A) I was largely using hyperbole for the sake of humor, B) refusal to criticize average people doesn't help them, C) there's always room for improvement and even self sacrificing people are probably flawed in other ways, and D) the self sacrificing examples you just cited would have to be .01% of the population so they're really the exception that proves the rule.

Read some Nietzsche. He's a perfect example of how you can be a harsh social critic and still look on the bright side of life.

Same as I told the other guy, nothing is perfect, that doesn't mean that it sucks though, which is generally used to mean something is overall negative. If you don't mean that, use a different phase next time.

No, as a rule humanity does kinda suck. It's not entirely bad, but it isn't good either. There's a lot of room for improvement. The only acceptable form of optimism is the optimism that takes pleasure in the struggle for self-overcoming. It is an optimism for what we can become, not about what we already are. Everything else is stagnation and wretched contentment.

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

You're construing "badness" far too narrowly. Under "badness" I would not only include violent behaviors but also greed, self centered-ness, a lack of critical thinking and a general disposition to uphold the consumption of goods as a more worthy life-goal than acts of intellectual, artistic or physical creation. These are crimes of which the vast majority of mankind is guilty.