Geraldo confronted about Fox News coverage of Baltimore

You can tell peoples biases based on the use of young man vs thug.

How did you know he was a thug?

a reply to: buster2010

Yes because thug is the new N word.

According to whom? It is not a new word and there are thugs of all colors. That the rioters were black has nothing to do with calling them thugs.

originally posted by: Lysergic
You can tell peoples biases based on the use of young man vs thug.

How did you know he was a thug?

They knew because he was black... isn't it obvious?

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I don't think this is a black vs white issue. It's about the system in place vs the black communities. They have a right to rise up and do what they feel necessary to create change.

Rioting and looting.......not how I would go about it, but that's their neighborhoods and their call.

I do have to ask, though. Would we call people that participated in the Boston tea party thugs? Or how about those that started a violent revolution that gave way to the creation of this fine country?

Were they thugs?

a reply to: introvert

Would we call people that participated in the Boston tea party thugs? Or how about those that started a violent revolution that gave way to the creation of this fine country?

Is that what the rioters were doing when they were looting neighborhood stores and burning cars? Somehow I don't think so.

The tea party as thuggery? The revolution? Nah. Both were quite a bit better organized than what happened in Baltimore. Both had clear goals. Both, from the point of view of the British, would be considered conspiracies.

a reply to: Phage

Does the level of organization somehow validate/invalidate the use of violent action to achieve a desired goal?

The revolution was an attempt to get out from under the oppressive English.

These riots are an attempt to start some sort of change do get out from under an oppressive system.

We may not personally agree with their actions, but I think we should be able to understand that sometimes it is necessary.

a reply to: introvert

Does the level of organization somehow validate/invalidate the use of violent action to achieve a desired goal?

No. The matter of validation is determined by the results and the interpretation of the results. But we aren't talking about validation, we are talking about the use of the term "thug." Thugs commit violence for its own sake or for personal gain.

These riots are an attempt to start some sort of change do get out from under an oppressive system.

No. They are, at best, an expression of frustration. There is no direction, there is random violence committed by thugs. Thugs come in all colors.

We may not personally agree with their actions, but I think we should be able to understand that sometimes it is necessary.

You are conflating two things; random violence and violence with specific purpose. You are confusing looting with protest.

a reply to: Phage

Indeed. I stand corrected.

Thank you.

a reply to: introvert

There's the difference between looters, rioters and protestors.

What we saw in Baltimore were looters (opportunists).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: introvert

Does the level of organization somehow validate/invalidate the use of violent action to achieve a desired goal?

No. The matter of validation is determined by the results and the interpretation of the results. But we aren't talking about validation, we are talking about the use of the term "thug." Thugs commit violence for its own sake or for personal gain.

These riots are an attempt to start some sort of change do get out from under an oppressive system.

No. They are, at best, an expression of frustration. There is no direction, there is random violence committed by thugs. Thugs come in all colors.

We may not personally agree with their actions, but I think we should be able to understand that sometimes it is necessary.

You are conflating two things; random violence and violence with specific purpose. You are confusing looting with protest.

Had to give you a star. We rarely agree on anything. Thugs are thugs and color has nothing to do with it. Thuggery is an action.

There comes a time when people need to take responsibility for their station in life and their actions. I really don't see that happening much any more. People looking to place blame on others for their failure need only a mirror to find the source of their discontent.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: introvert

Does the level of organization somehow validate/invalidate the use of violent action to achieve a desired goal?

No. The matter of validation is determined by the results and the interpretation of the results. But we aren't talking about validation, we are talking about the use of the term "thug." Thugs commit violence for its own sake or for personal gain.

These riots are an attempt to start some sort of change do get out from under an oppressive system.

No. They are, at best, an expression of frustration. There is no direction, there is random violence committed by thugs. Thugs come in all colors.

We may not personally agree with their actions, but I think we should be able to understand that sometimes it is necessary.

You are conflating two things; random violence and violence with specific purpose. You are confusing looting with protest.

/thread

Though the man in the video still has a point and can not be categorized as a thug.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: introvert

There's the difference between looters, rioters and protestors.

What we saw in Baltimore were looters (opportunists).

I have to agree.