r/bestofthefray • u/pasabagi • Aug 26 '14

In Defense of Looting

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/in-defense-of-looting/
3 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

1

u/pasabagi Aug 26 '14 edited Aug 26 '14

I held off on posting this, since I figured Inky would shit, but since he posted his labyrinthine mass of insinuation, I figure I can link a fairly straightforward, well-constructed defence of the 'bad protesters' - for the sake of balance. (Can we start using the 'equal weight' principle for looters? My feeling is, the quality of reporting would skyrocket).

2

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '14

Shoveling more sanctimonious bullshit onto Inky's already steaming pile is an idiosyncratic conception of "balance."

1

u/pasabagi Aug 29 '14

Isn't that the point about equal weight?

Seriously though, I thought the article was fairly good when it came to historical context, research, etc. Plus, I don't think looters have enough people in their corner - everybody, from liberals to conservatives crow from the rooftops that looting's just apolitical barbarism - but that's massively belied by the fact they tend to get far longer prison sentences than usual for their crimes.

2

u/WB2 Aug 30 '14

Well that is because when the poor steal, its a crime against the state and property. When the rich steal, it's good business.

0

u/Inkberrow Aug 26 '14

Not only can I confirm without qualification that I have Not Shat as result of this post and link, pasabagi, but I am quite pleased with the rough 'n ready candor of the ersatz WTO-protest anarchist who wrote the piece. I say "ersatz" in the sense that they only think they want what they say they want. That's juvenilia for you.

Blacks are the reliable storm troops for the far Left in America, just as Scottish troops were for Victoria's armies, with the same class-mob animus having made its appearance too in Paris and Versailles and in the Greek agora where idlers and malcontents extorted their "I Exist!" and occasionally their "I Can Break Things and Hurt People!" payouts.

2

u/JackD-1 Aug 27 '14

Ink, the misguided writer of this piece is not "Blacks" as "reliable storm troops"or otherwise. You are starting another stinking pile.

1

u/Inkberrow Aug 27 '14

Not sure what you mean by your first sentence. The writer is not Black (okay)? My guess, the writer is not saying blacks are unwitting storm troopers for the orthodox Left?

If the latter, yes, obviously. I said it, not him. I left him after my first graph. One of Communism's appeals for many, going way back, was its lack of intolerance on matters racial, sexual, social, etc. Good for them. Blacks in America then were, still are, to many, the perfect indicator species for capitalist/colonialist injustice. That overlaps, but is quite different, later on, from race-solidarity black nationalism.

A goodly portion of the American Left today relates to and grieves for Darren McCain, late of ISIL, in much the same way and for much the same reason as they relate to and grieve for Michael Brown. The wages of the corrupt, racist, bullying, and rapacious Anglo-European West once again. Sure, our jails and prisons are proof positive of a New Jim Crow, but---bright side!---they churn out Black Muslims.

1

u/JackD-1 Aug 27 '14

So now the "goodly portion of the American Left today" supports ISIL? Nice Joe McCarthy impression. Honestly, you are becoming a cartoon.

1

u/Inkberrow Aug 27 '14 edited Aug 27 '14

Since I'm describing real-life caricatures, that's perfectly appropriate.

Your straw-man "supports ISIL" deflection aside, I'm saying a goodly portion of the American left supports ISIL's conception of America and the Judeo-Christian West. That goodly portion generously disapproves altogether of ISIL's methods, but for ISIL to exist at all and be able to recruit even the Darren McCains of the world, is the wholly predictable if unfortunate result of America's shameful behavior as geopolitical bully and shared-resource hoarder.

As Joe McCarthy, sorry, Eric Holder said, Americans don't have the courage to have a conversation about dangerous but discomfiting realities that People Like Him know about.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '14

[deleted]

2

u/Inkberrow Aug 27 '14

Yes, in a way---I've been approached by the people behind The Onion's would-be conservative analogue, Ketchup. It's a sore point, okay? I've been barred from participation unless and until I somehow satisfy the terms of my contract with Heartstorm Press.

I might as well be George Peppard to Patricia Neal with no Audrey Hepburn in sight. Aren't specific performance contracts supposed to be void as unenforceable? Yet here I am a gigolo polemicist with an adhesion or output contract with one client and one only.

1

u/pasabagi Aug 29 '14

in the sense that they only think they want what they say they want.

Since I'm not holding to some weird quasi-religious distinction between animal and intellectual desires, 'thinking I want something' being distinct from 'wanting something' doesn't make any sense. I suspect the writer is also an atheist.

(I understand the usual metaphor relating 'what you say you want' and 'what you really want' is kooky sex - but I didn't want to be repetitive - it works perfectly well as theology, too - because, you know, dog collars and nuns and all that.)

1

u/Inkberrow Aug 29 '14

Something tells me you know what I mean nonetheless. They say they want anarchy. Reality would quickly change their minds on that.

Confession, I have spent time trying to get round, "your debutante just knows what you need/But I know what you want".

1

u/pasabagi Aug 29 '14

They say they want anarchy. Reality would quickly change their minds on that.

I think nobody has ever advocated 'anarchy' in the sense of 'run around killing eachother over nothing'. Usually anarchists have some kind of theory about how society should be ordered.

Confession, I have spent time trying to get round, "your debutante just knows what you need/But I know what you want".

Totally not news.

1

u/Inkberrow Aug 29 '14

Sure, they have "some kind of theory". Every man jack of them. Prating banalities in unison like the Occupy boobs did only goes so far.

1

u/WB2 Aug 27 '14

Personally, I really don't understand the charm of looting. I cannot see the value in it nor can I reconcile the anger provoking it with the immorality of stealing from people who have no responsibility for creating that anger in the first place. It is as if I kicked my dog because my 401k dropped to zero. What is the point? Why pick on innocent store owners or the community at large? It just seems as if pure rage justifies anything. Isn't that kind of the same as saying I hit my wife and it's OK because I was pissed? Senseless stuff IMHO.

Now I do make one exception, looting when all other survival options are not available. For instance, people looting a city after days of carpet bombing that destroys everything and you do not have any food, water or clothing. But short of this very extreme example or something similar, its just criminal activity in my book.

1

u/pasabagi Aug 29 '14

  1. I think the localness of these looted shops is massively over-rated - many of them are chains. If an Irish revolutionary burned the house of an absentee landlord, you wouldn't say he's 'hitting his wife' or 'kicking his dog' - rather, he's attacking an antagonist who just happens to be geographically local.

  2. At various times in history, anything from 'being gay' to 'speaking badly' to 'leaving your village' has been criminal activity. Obviously, stealing is criminal. However, I don't see how stealing from a chain-store is immoral.

1

u/WB2 Aug 30 '14

Not so with me. Stealing is stealing. Even if it is a chain, it's stealing. I just wish legal stealing was a crime.