h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, the moderators are really trying my nerves today. One of the links I posted above has been removed. It's not because it's broken as they indicate but because someone doesn't like the content of it. It is to an opinion piece on MSNBC's website. The article considers how peaceful protests are ignored and how violence is giving a voice to those involved in the riots.

Here's a quote from one of the rioters when asked if violence is the appropriate response,

"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"

It seems to me that this link was deleted because the article was controversial.

Tell me how this isn't censorship.

Smeg heads!

I found the report, CZ. I agree, though, that moderation here is horrible.

D'you know, Hyp, that when you posted I thought something was kicking off in the US. And it was only when my Mum phoned that I realised it was still going on. Deary me. Must turn on the news more often.

To me, this is a very difficult subject to be absolutely pro or contra about. I'm old, and I've never thought violence, war and such-like was any solution. I've always liked the Danish communist poet's saying: Imagine they proclaimed a war, and nobody came...

A hippie at heart: Present the police with a flower in stead of a stone in the face. But I do understand young peoples' frustration and need for quick solutions so you can get on with your life in a revolutioned world.

Still, we support the peoples' both peaceful and violent up-rise against dictatorship in Africa and Asia. We even celebrate or shout hurraaah when a very vicious leader bites the dust.

We in Europe had Rote Arm� Fraction and something-Rossa in Italy. Movements to create disorder to show the people how corrupt the (capitalistic) societies were, and to disable the capitalistic societies' inner structure.

I'm all for the latter, because big companies' influence on politics is too powerful and does not at all take ordinary or handicapped or old or poor people into consideration - on the contrary, rather. But I draw the line on bank robbery, intimidation, fraud, abduction, killing etc.

The US has always supported violent and undemocratic governments with a lot of money, at load of soldiers and intelligence, and financial barricades - (a lot of young Danish people died in Nicaragua when they - peacefully - tried to educate the poor. Actually several of my friends' children of 18-22) - as well as proclaiming and actually supporting democratic movements. Very confusing. But it is blatantly obvious that peoples' rights, equality, peace and freedom is not the first priority of US - and has never been. The Middle and South America, Africa, Middle and Far East is a proof of that. It was the US that installed Sadam Hussein and M. Gadaffi and kept them in power to secure the oil.

To me it seems like the money and the peace for making business speaks louder than freedom and equality.

Even now, where a financial evaluation body - who was mistaken three years ago or even making frauds - is allowed to dictate politics. It blows my mind.

I completely agree with you Tartaronne.

As to the article I linked to earlier, I assume the moderator mistakenly read it as supporting violence. It wasn't and I never support violence. The article just made me think about the sad state of the media that peaceful protests are all but ignored, (especially in the US) while violence, while officially decried, is given rather glorious coverage.

Rioting is never a successful tactic, merely one of frustration and mob mentality. It takes away legitimacy from those protesting and gives to those they protest against. It's completely counter productive. But it does get attention.

We need a new way to get people's attention on the important stuff.

Remember when it was easy? Just shock them by running around with no clothes on, or nominating a pig for President?

What does it take to be subversive around here?

(Besides trying to get a link past the moderators?)

I need to go to bed, but am struggling to turn off the reports on the television. This is *terrifying*.

I'm with 2legs...it isn't that there's more hoodlums, there's just more idle airtime, and talking heads looking for a story.

I suspect that most of us involved in this conversation are fairly well off, fairly white, fairly middle class, and of a certain age, and have little direct knowledge of life as presented to most of the people involved in the protests/riots. Thirty years on from the Brixton/Toxteth/St Pauls riots, black kids say they're still being stopped and searched by the cops, even though the sus laws are supposed to have been repealed.

I don't know for sure if they are or not but it's hard not to believe that it's the case when you hear on NPR just a few days ago that black and Hispanic college graduates earn less than their white counterparts. Western society is still biased in favour of the white man (and yes, I mean man, not always woman), no two ways about it.

As long as society continues to become more obsessed with material goods, is it any wonder that those who are effectively excluded from the feast will seize upon any opportunity to grab themselves a slice of what society tells them they should have but denies them, when all role models and authority figures set the most appalling examples, validating and legitimising selfish and amoral behaviour? These people have no moral compass.

And that's trying to look at it rationally. There's nothing rational about what's happening in London right now. Nothing at all. No, that's not true. There are undoubtedly many people involved who are perfectly rational about causing mayhem and destroying property. And there are many who are just caught up in the heat of the moment and who have little to lose because... they literally have little to lose.

This, if true, was a telling comment from eight hours ago: "Interesting - for all the talk, police have so far arrested fewer rioting tws than they did peaceful demonstrators at Fortnum & Mason..." That's right Met Police, pick the low hanging fruit (most of whom were eventually exonerated). And now, suddenly, all the politicians are cutting short their holidays and hightailing it back to London, because which of them doesn't remember the flak that HM QE2 got for staying at Balmoral when Princess Diana died, or Dubya for taking his time about getting to NOLA.

Red sky at night, shepherds' delight. Red sky in the morning, Peckham's on fire.

Or Tottenham http://londonist.com/2011/08/video-burning-skies-over-tottenham.php

Deary me, they've looted my local high street. And I was just there this afternoon. Twitter abuzz with plans for people to show up tomorrow and help clear up.

Interestingly I wouldn't say that the plight of the young at the bottom of the pile in inner city London (say) is any worse now than it was before the economic hard times hit - they were stuffed then too. But the have now listened to X years of reports about how stuffed they are. Well, how stuffed everybody is. And, of course, that's reinforced every time the Tory's announce more cuts. I wouldn't call this a protest myself, but while Cameron et al talk about tightening our middle class belts, it must seem like the destruction of all hope at all to some every time some new attack on public spending is announced.

There was a week of riots in Los Angeles in 1992, starting from the same sort (but less severe -- google Rodney King) police event. However, while a number of people tried to say that it wasn't a "riot" but an "insurrection" I've had my doubts. While the cause of the anger was just, the looting wasn't. Firstly, because it didn't have much to do with the original protest.

I lived at one end of the zone that burned, and the folks on TV looting the goods at the local appliance store *weren't* of the group who had reason for the unrest. And certainly the hundreds of empty shoe boxes littering my block the next morning had nothing to do with justice.

The victims from this, particularly in lower class neighborhoods, are going to be the merchants who served the community. To this day, a number of neighborhoods here don't even have decent supermarkets, or banks (an advance check-cashing establishment is NOT a bank!) as those retail corporations won't invest in the area now. For those who feel abandoned/hopeless, they will be doubly so as a result of this.

The same thing broke out in Birmingham last night and other cities, though not on such a large scale.

It is obvious social sites, mobile phones etc. have all played their part in the escalation. They can't be blamed per se for the problems I have taken part in stuff organised by internet etc. without incident and to the good.

What makes me so angry is the fact that the police seem to have been emasculated, hands tied behind their backs metaphorically. Hundreds of experienced police officers have been forcibly retired, who have past experience of such events. Big mistake. So they are seen as wimps by the juvenile (and adult) criminal fraternity. They have no fear of authority whatever, and they are only children in many cases!

Why is it we can all see what needs doing yet feeble govts. won't act?

I am boiling up so I am signing off before I say something inflammatory

Websailor

Once it becomes a "Riot", the original causes are irrelevant. The mob has no purpose other than to escalate. It doesn't care who or what it attacks, just that it does so. There is no difference between a riot sparked by oppression and injustice and one sparked by a sports team's win or loss. Both will leave local merchants, vehicles and random individuals destroyed in its wake.

Websailor, you are so right about there being no fear of authority, and there are so many reasons why we've reached this point. Simplistically speaking...

One of them is today's appeasement culture. Oh, you didn't get exactly what you wanted? Your experience was not exactly what you were expecting? Here, have a bunch of free stuff. Another is the hands off mentality when dealing with people in all kinds of situations for fear of being sued.

One more (already referenced) is the lack of morals being shown, with surprising regularity just recently, by authority figures.

Given those reasons, and more, such as the elevation of individual rights and entitlements and the demonisation of anything municipal and collective, is it so surprising that some in society will have no sense of responsibility other than to themselves?

After three nights of rioting it seems that ordinary people are starting to fight back. Last night all I could see on my heavily London-oriented Twitter feed was comments about how awful it was, how idiotic the rioters were, how people were ashamed to be Londoners. The biggest trend was #londonriots.

This morning it's all about #cleanup and stories of people coming out and banding together to clear away the mess, and there's talk of doing tonight what bands of Turkish people did last night in Stoke Newington and Dalston http://twitpic.com/635ffl There needs to be more of this http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixel-eight/6024429000/

It's a cliche but it's true - the people, united, can never be defeated, and just typing that brings a tear to my eye

I think you're right. Once violence starts, it's like a forest fire. Somebody needs to put it out.

But the important thing, once the shouting's over, is to figure out why it happened - playing with matches? arson? bad land-use policy?

In this case, intense frustration by people who are mad as H and won't take it any more?

My point above was that the rioting always hits the wrong people - some poor mom-and-pop store owner who's trying to serve the community. It won't hit the bad policymakers. They're safe behind bullet-proof glass.

"One of them is today's appeasement culture. Oh, you didn't get exactly what you wanted? Your experience was not exactly what you were expecting? Here, have a bunch of free stuff."

Every kid gets a medal on sports day...

Frustration on the part of people is one reason, Dmitri, given the apparent lack of any connection with reality by politicians and the media. I hear constant talk of cuts that have to be made because of the economic situation. The British government says cuts are needed. The US government argues about the amount of cuts that have to be made. Greece, Ireland and Italy are told that if they want monetary help they have to make cuts and implement austerity measures.

These cuts are talked about as if they're something nebulous and intangible, something that has no consequences. I hardly ever hear any reporting of exactly what the effects of the cuts will be or what exactly is going to be cut. They *do* have consequences, but certainly not on the people who implement them or the people who caused this economic mess in the first place.

Well, they might not have immediate effects, but come the next election a lot of Tory MPs are going to be losing their seats. And as for the Liberal Democrats, tying themselves to the Tories in the coalition is one of the worst things they ever did and will taint them for a long time to come.

I hear you.

When I cautiously venture that these spending cuts might usefully be made on big-ticket items - say, a few less state-of-the-art killing machines - I usually get yelled at.

Rather than, say, cutting out lesser programmes that have long-term benefits by helping people get education, jobs, better health...

Right this minute, I'm writing exam helps on the 1950s. Now, Eisenhower's foreign policy might be suspect. But that man had some good ideas. He invested in infrastructure - highways, airports, the St Laurence Seaway. He spent money wisely. (And he stuck Earl Warren in the Supreme Court, and turned him loose on civil rights.)

Now, why can't we learn from this?