You're the one displaying "moral outrage" here:
This tactic wherein you go around accusing anyone who suggests that there's serious politics to be understood here, of endorsing and excusing crime, is cheap and nasty. You're attempting to use "moral outrage" over these crimes, to negate consideration of the underlying political issues. And substitute in its place a brutal authoritarian repression.
While I have little trouble taking that seriously, I do have a hard time respecting it. I don't see where I've made any point beyond the assertion that, however objectionable various actions in the unrest may be, the phenomenon still represents something with legitimate political content worth addressing seriously. That is what you are disagreeing with - exactly by asserting that the character of the unrest invalidates any serious consideration of its context and cause. And which point is pursued via emotional tactics of pissing on the character of those involved in the unrest, and tarring those who point to legitimate issues as apologists for criminality.
Speaking of moral outrage..
You obviously read my posts and took it how you wish to take it.
I never denied that the UK's social and economic issues which plague the poor are not worthy of consideration or a major overhaul to fix. Quite the contrary. I do however think that a bunch of kids, ignoring the plight of the people they are making suffer, stealing and burning shops, cars and even their houses is the wrong way to address it. Whether you agree or not is your perogative. I do have a right to an opinion, just as you have a right to your own. What you do not have a right to do is to twist my opinion into something that it is not, because it differs from your own.
I'm pretty sure I've responded to this particular line (dismissing social unrest because it doesn't work like an organized democratic protest) several times already in this thread. It would be cool if you could actually respond to that as such, rather than simply repeating these talking points.
Do you think wealthy teenagers and adults are helping the poor and bringing attention to their plight by robbing them and burning their homes and livelihoods?
These riots, looting and burning pisses on the poor and the lower class, because not only does it destroy their property, but it also destroys what other little prospects they may have. Look at the images coming from the riots.. The people who live there having to run for their lives as youth not even from their areas and neighbourhoods decide to enrich themselves and burn what is left. Now we find out that a very large portion of the people rioting simply saw an opportunity to enrich themselves and so they took it. This was not a political statement. Are you telling me that a kleptomaniac who has over 80 previous charges of theft is making a political statement when she took a wheelie bin full of goods and booze from stores? Do you think those who stole laptops and then tried to sell them to the poor people living in the area are making a political statement?
What about those who set fire to the homes of the poor and the "underclass" for fun? What political statement were they making? About their lack of prospects? In other words, "I need help, I have no bright and wealthy future, so I will burn down the homes of people to make you see that"?
It is hard to take it seriously when you consider the abject poverty of those they attacked and whose homes they burned. To the point where they attacked people who tried to stop them, poor people who are actually suffering from the socio-economic conditions they are being forced to live in and endure.. To the point where they beat a 68 year old man to death because he tried to put out a fire they started..
Such actions cannot be justified. And yes, that is my opinion. You can differ as much as you want and be rude about it.. I do have the right to my opinion just as you have the right to yours.
It will if people stop and think about the big picture seriously for a minute - and so, undertake serious measures to address the underlying issues.
Which will not happen now. Now the Government is set on punishing and further control and police measures in those areas.. which will amount to a higher incarceration rate and a higher representation rate within the criminal legal system.. They will be further scrutinised and abused by the system. Sure, there may be a few token Government jobs in the offering, but that will be nothing compared to the further abuse the whole will be made to suffer as a result of this. This will create and cause a stigma which that socio-economic group will have a hard time losing..
They are not going to be allowed access to more funds. They will lose more as insurance costs for the poor in those areas go up to cover the losses in homes, stock, stores, cars, tourism to the areas and to the shops.. Burning down the Sony factory.. How many jobs will be lost as a result do you think? Those people are not going to be the winners here. Instead of now going forward, the actions of the looters has only made them go backwards..
I'll give you an example.. Look at the riots in the ME countries at the moment. They are rioting against their respective regimes for the abusive practices and lack of rights and prospects..
But there is no looting. Could it be because causing further pain to your neighbours is counter-productive and will only make their lives and thus your own harder? If you loot and destroy the supermarket, you not only destroy the stock, but you also destroy the livelihood of the person(s) working there and the business.. And you also destroy any prospect of having access to food in the area and if the shop re-opens, they may hike up the prices because of the loss of business while it was being repaired and re-stocked. There are ways to riot against the system. Looting and destroying the livelihood of your neighbours is not the way to go about it.
Do you understand what I mean now?
If they indulge their knee-jerk reaction to Other the protesters as "scum" and double down on repression, of course not. The point being exactly that such an outcome is not inevitable - or morally justifiable, or acceptable - even if it is likely. Such likelihood is a further indictment of the British bourgeoisie, not a moral axiom that we must hold the underclass accountable to.
The underclass is not responsible for this. Have you failed to notice that a very large portion of looters were employed and from the middle class?
The reaction to this will be further repression.
Did you fail to notice how the police stood by half the time and did nothing as they looted? They simply watched. Why do you think that is?
I'll give you a hint..
funding..
And do you want a hint about the British bourgeoisie?
An e-petition calling for rioters to lose their benefits has hit 100,000 signatures and become the first to be considered for a Commons debate.
It has dwarfed others on the government website, which has struggled to deal with the volume of people accessing it.
The petition has now been formally referred to a committee which will decide whether to hold a debate.
It comes as English councils say they will seek to evict social tenants found guilty of taking part in disorder.
[Source]
This is the reality. So while we can sit here and pontificate about how the socio-economic conditions of the underclass needs to change and how these riots were caused by said conditions, this is the reality of what will happen..
A 17-year-old aspiring dancer who handed herself in after seeing her picture in a newspaper was among the defendants at a busy, yet efficient, Westminster Magistrates' Court.
An estate agent and students studying accountancy, journalism and engineering faced the district judge on charges arising from the riots.
The fate of an 18-year-old man who bought sports clothes which had been stolen from JD Sports in Clapham illustrated how seriously these offenders were being treated.
Ordinarily punished by a fine or community service, he was remanded in custody to face the heavier prison sentences of the crown court.
[
Source]
Maybe, just maybe, it's possible that both first-world countries and African failed states both have serious social problems that merit consideration.
I am not saying that it does not merit consideration. But this much outrage?
While the media spent the week solely focused on the UK, thousands of people died of starvation in Somalia. Perspective.. Sharing of wealth between the upper classes and lower classes and dying of starvation..
Which do you think deserves a higher priority at the moment? Right now?
The people who can still afford to eat daily at the very least? Or those who are dying from lack of food and drinking water while we watch stores full of food being set alight by those who can afford to eat because of their socio-economical position within British society?
Although I'll note the paternalist take, again: this is just another iteration of the old cliche "eat your vegetables, there are starving children in Africa that would kill for them." To which the age-old response suggests itself naturally: by all means, send the British riot cops to Somalia instead.
Or send the teenagers and the adults caught looting, with food aid to Somalia and have them actually get some perspective..?
Call it community service.
But note the actual reasoned outcome of your line of argument: England's problems don't merit addressing unless and until England comes to resemble Somalia. So if the underclass there wants its issues addressed, it follows directly that they should work to break down law and order in England and reduce it into Somalia. The quicker that happens, the quicker they'll merit consideration, apparently.
On the contrary. Englands problems do merit attention, very much so. In my opinion, I think they are going to end up getting negative attention instead of positive attention because the middle class decided to have some fun looting and burning at the expense of the lower and underclass.
