Urban Violence in London [Archive] - Discussion World Forum

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 8th 2011, 10:57 PM

According to this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-london-riots-20110809,0,1378691.story) report, the worst in 25-years. Civil violence in developed countries has been discussed on this forum many times, with a majority of posters taking a position of non-violent government response, letting the masses vent their frustrations by destroying public and private property to their hearts content.

What about this incident? Since law enforcement is unable to quell widespread, massive disturbances, should government restrain itself until destructive emotion runs dry or call in the military to restore order?

I believe the British government has the right to do whatever is necessary, and use whatever force necessary, to defend its capital city. Period. These are not 'protesters', this is violent scum. Most of them, from what I gather, came to Britain from abroad, they were taken in, as guests, as immigrants; and are now acting in an ungrateful, arrogant, selfish fashion. I think the UK military should show them who the boss is.

Donkey

Aug 8th 2011, 11:03 PM

Nobody ever wants to talk about why these things happen.

Donkey

Aug 8th 2011, 11:25 PM

We shouldn't let ourselves get distracted by the childish idea that this sort of phenomena is in any way unrelated to the direct results of capitalism (rule by and for those who hold capital).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8630533/Riots-the-underclass-lashes-out.html

London’s riots are not the Tupperware troubles of Greece or Spain, where the middle classes lash out against their day of reckoning. They are the proof that a section of young Britain – the stabbers, shooters, looters, chancers and their frightened acolytes – has fallen off the cliff-edge of a crumbling nation.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 9th 2011, 12:23 AM

Poverty and misfortune are not an excuse for violence and crime.

You know, this is why I don't want these kind of immigrants in my country.

I am not anti-immigrant. I respect good immigrants. You know, my wife works to help such people, she has friends, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyz, Azerbaijanis, etc. But there is a difference between them and those morons in London, BIG difference. These guys come here to work
http://vestibelarusi.ru/sites/bel/files/002.jpg

and that's what they do. They clean our streets
http://pics.magazine.rbc.ru/magazine2_pics/uniora/37/369/711/b63cb8d24fd25c5cc926f8019234a1d5.jpg

and they build our homes
http://img11.nnm.ru/2/4/9/8/c/a0dfff5fce6cc40940be308313a.jpg

They work like animals, insane hours for minimal pay, and take exploitation and abuse without complaint, because they want to become a citizen, so they can bring their families here. They love Russia and want to be a part of it
http://www.fin-crisis.ru/_nw/4/02165.jpg

That is why it makes me angry when racist nationalist scum attack these good people. I respect these guys.

But those ones that come, say, to London, get on welfare, leech off the British government, make crazy demands, and act in a arrogant, disrespectful, ungrateful fashion... I spit on them. They are pathetic. Deserve whatever they get from the British police (and troops, if, God forbid, that proves necessary).

Non Sequitur

Aug 9th 2011, 12:24 AM

According to this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-london-riots-20110809,0,1378691.story) report, the worst in 25-years. Civil violence in developed countries has been discussed on this forum many times, with a majority of posters taking a position of non-violent government response, letting the masses vent their frustrations by destroying public and private property to their hearts content.

What about this incident? Since law enforcement is unable to quell widespread, massive disturbances, should government restrain itself until destructive emotion runs dry or call in the military to restore order?

loose/loose either way. Calling in the military will scar a city for a long time (look at Detroit after the race riots). Not ending the riots will cause untold damage. No good solution or answer.

Non Sequitur

Aug 9th 2011, 12:27 AM

I believe the British government has the right to do whatever is necessary, and use whatever force necessary, to defend its capital city. Period. These are not 'protesters', this is violent scum. Most of them, from what I gather, came to Britain from abroad, they were taken in, as guests, as immigrants; and are now acting in an ungrateful, arrogant, selfish fashion. I think the UK military should show them who the boss is.

"whatever is necessary"... That is a dangerous idea. We are talking about people here who's lives do count for something.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 9th 2011, 01:32 AM

"whatever is necessary"... That is a dangerous idea. We are talking about people here who's lives do count for something.

We are also talking about a national capital being attacked. What do you propose, just let them continue to destroy the city?

Zarquon

Aug 9th 2011, 05:37 PM

The savage austerity measures undertaken by Britain might have something to do with it. As for the rioting itself, the police should've been better equipped and prepared, especially after last year's student protests.

nanacat

Aug 9th 2011, 05:45 PM

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 9th 2011, 06:00 PM

I heard today that there are plans for 8600 armed police officers to be out on the streets tonight. Talk about overkill....

Why is it 'overkill'?

Here in Moscow usually a couple thousand security forces members, armed to the teeth, assemble around Luzhniki stadium for every major football game, and hundreds more in plainclothes infiltrate the crowds. And most of us grateful for that: that's how you prevent a riot.

The cause, I can tell you: the culture of entitlemen among modern youth. I know, because here in Moscow we have that too. Not in the villages, it is different there, young people raised the traditional way. But here, it is like in the West. They grow up felling that everyone owes them everything and they do not owe anyone anything.

Americano

Aug 9th 2011, 07:22 PM

The savage austerity measures undertaken by Britain might have something to do with it.

According to what I've read it supposedly does. Public assistance was reduced and have-nots feel entitled to the standard of living formerly provided. Current civil unrest is being compared to austerity measures enacted 25-years ago with the same results, but is that an acceptable excuse for wanton destruction of public and private property?

As for the rioting itself, the police should've been better equipped and prepared, especially after last year's student protests.

Civilian law enforcement (LE) in most developed countries is staffed and equipped to maintain civil obedience on a defined ratio of X LE per thousand citizens dependent on crime statistics in a given area. To anticipate destructive riots with planning for immediately relocating adequate personnel/equipment is beyond logistical capabilities of most all cities. In the US national guard troops supplement local law enforcement for emergencies, including civil disorder.

Americano

Aug 9th 2011, 07:43 PM

Why is it 'overkill'?

Here in Moscow usually a couple thousand security forces members, armed to the teeth, assemble around Luzhniki stadium for every major football game, and hundreds more in plainclothes infiltrate the crowds. And most of us grateful for that: that's how you prevent a riot.

The cause, I can tell you: the culture of entitlemen among modern youth. I know, because here in Moscow we have that too. Not in the villages, it is different there, young people raised the traditional way. But here, it is like in the West. They grow up felling that everyone owes them everything and they do not owe anyone anything.

I agree with your opinion. I can only speak for the US and there is a strong sense of entitlement in many of our youth and young adults. Rather than attempting to do something about their individual circumstances, they seek to lay blame on whatever or whomever is handy. Yet they curse developing country workers who accept lower standards of living and despise anyone unsympathetic to their demands of social equality just because they exist. Sociologists are defining the current crop of young adults as the live at home or parental subsidized generation. That's one reason the US requires immigrant workers for the jobs Americans won't perform.

I have no idea if the UK has a similar circumstance but wouldn't be surprised if it does.

Americano

Aug 9th 2011, 07:50 PM

loose/loose either way. Calling in the military will scar a city for a long time (look at Detroit after the race riots). Not ending the riots will cause untold damage. No good solution or answer.

Many of the affected areas in England bear a similarity to Detroit with vanished industry, workers unwilling to relocate and now multiple generations dependent on public assistance. What's another scar?

Non Sequitur

Aug 9th 2011, 08:27 PM

Many of the affected areas in England bear a similarity to Detroit with vanished industry, workers unwilling to relocate and now multiple generations dependent on public assistance. What's another scar?

no empathy for the suffering huh?

Donkey

Aug 9th 2011, 08:41 PM

I agree with your opinion. I can only speak for the US and there is a strong sense of entitlement in many of our youth and young adults. Rather than attempting to do something about their individual circumstances, they seek to lay blame on whatever or whomever is handy. Yet they curse developing country workers who accept lower standards of living and despise anyone unsympathetic to their demands of social equality just because they exist. Sociologists are defining the current crop of young adults as the live at home or parental subsidized generation. That's one reason the US requires immigrant workers for the jobs Americans won't perform.

I have no idea if the UK has a similar circumstance but wouldn't be surprised if it does.

Everybody has their own sense of entitlement. It's easy to judge somebody else's.

Americano

Aug 9th 2011, 08:48 PM

no empathy for the suffering huh?

No depth of compassion due to complete absence of viable solution.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 9th 2011, 09:11 PM

Everybody has their own sense of entitlement. It's easy to judge somebody else's.

I don't. I earned everything I own.

Americano

Aug 9th 2011, 09:49 PM

I don't. I earned everything I own.

Those rioting in England seem to feel that's not an acceptable method of acquisition. If it isn't given to them at a standard they demand their preference is destroying/taking what others have earned. To some, that seems to be a justifiable rationalization.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 9th 2011, 10:38 PM

Those rioting in England seem to feel that's not an acceptable method of acquisition. If it isn't given to them at a standard they demand their preference is destroying/taking what others have earned. To some, that seems to be a justifiable rationalization.

Yes. That's football hooligans here too... Ungrateful, selfish morons.

Donkey

Aug 9th 2011, 11:40 PM

No depth of compassion due to complete absence of viable solution.
Don't see you trying.
I don't. I earned everything I own.There isn't a person in the world who can say that.

Those rioting in England seem to feel that's not an acceptable method of acquisition. If it isn't given to them at a standard they demand their preference is destroying/taking what others have earned. To some, that seems to be a justifiable rationalization.

How exactly should they have gone about "earning" it?

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 10th 2011, 12:31 AM

The rioters are destroying hard-working people's livelihoods.
What do they hope to gain by doing this to the country that pays their unemployment money???
They hope to get expensive trainers, and suchlike, that's what.

I work hard, and would still never dream of buying expensive trainers.

Britain is much too soft, and they should bring the army in.

It's very easy to be 'understanding' about crime that doesn't affect oneself.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 10th 2011, 01:17 AM

There isn't a person in the world who can say that.

Well, I did. I worked for all I have. All of it. I came to Moscow with nothing, a few hundred rubles in my pocket. My family offered to send me some money, but I told them not to: they were and still are quite poor themselves, they needed money more than I did. I earned my home too. Until I did, I had no home, for two whole years. You have no idea what sort of places I had to spend nights in: basements, garages... Actually, my first night I slept right there at the railway terminal. I got a job, worked as a mechanic on a river boat, and lived on that river boat, for four years. Eventually, I saved enough to buy my first apartment in the capital, a one room rat hole in a Khrushevka (5 floor buildings contructed during Nikita Khrushev's reign, a signature monument of his times, so they refer to such buildings after him). Eventually, I moved into a different field: security. Met my wife. I worked as a security guard for several years after. Now, I am a successful man, by the standards of my country. I have my own security firm, a apartment, a dacha, two cars, a beautiful wife, two healthy children, and plenty of money to go around. Everything I have, I earned, Donkey. My life is my life. I built that life for myself. Nobody helped me, nobody handed me anything on a platter. I am what you in America call a 'self-made man'. And those are the kind of men I respect too.

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 10th 2011, 01:22 AM

Donkey

Aug 10th 2011, 09:28 AM

Well, I did. I worked for all I have. All of it. I came to Moscow with nothing, a few hundred rubles in my pocket. My family offered to send me some money, but I told them not to: they were and still are quite poor themselves, they needed money more than I did. I earned my home too. Until I did, I had no home, for two whole years. You have no idea what sort of places I had to spend nights in: basements, garages... Actually, my first night I slept right there at the railway terminal. I got a job, worked as a mechanic on a river boat, and lived on that river boat, for four years. Eventually, I saved enough to buy my first apartment in the capital, a one room rat hole in a Khrushevka (5 floor buildings contructed during Nikita Khrushev's reign, a signature monument of his times, so they refer to such buildings after him). Eventually, I moved into a different field: security. Met my wife. I worked as a security guard for several years after. Now, I am a successful man, by the standards of my country. I have my own security firm, a apartment, a dacha, two cars, a beautiful wife, two healthy children, and plenty of money to go around. Everything I have, I earned, Donkey. My life is my life. I built that life for myself. Nobody helped me, nobody handed me anything on a platter. I am what you in America call a 'self-made man'. And those are the kind of men I respect too.

Please, I'm not trying to diminish the work, initiative, and sacrifice that you've put in. Nick actually explained what I meant, more or less.

The Drunk Guy

Aug 10th 2011, 11:14 AM

MeMyselfandI, I congratulate you, you have a lot to be proud of. Also, I believe you, in case you doubt that.
However, I think Donkey is probably thinking that you were given your education, your ability to read.

If you had been born in Africa, with nothing, and not even the possibility of learning to read, then maybe you wouldn't have achieved what you have.
And what about learning mechanics? You must have had tools, or a teacher, surely.

I'm only trying to interpret what Donkey is saying, I have huge respect for what you have achieved.
To go a step further, we were all given something the current generation of youngsters don't have: opportunity.

When middle class lay-offs send thousands of workers down the food-chain, someone falls off the end of the chain to make room.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 10th 2011, 01:12 PM

MeMyselfandI, I congratulate you, you have a lot to be proud of. Also, I believe you, in case you doubt that.
However, I think Donkey is probably thinking that you were given your education, your ability to read.

If you had been born in Africa, with nothing, and not even the possibility of learning to read, then maybe you wouldn't have achieved what you have.
And what about learning mechanics? You must have had tools, or a teacher, surely.

I'm only trying to interpret what Donkey is saying, I have huge respect for what you have achieved.

I learned ship/boat mechanics by serving in the Russian Navy ;)

But, yes, I see your point. And yours, Donkey, and Drunk Guy.

Americano

Aug 10th 2011, 08:48 PM

To go a step further, we were all given something the current generation of youngsters don't have: opportunity.

When middle class lay-offs send thousands of workers down the food-chain, someone falls off the end of the chain to make room.

Many normally fall off because limitation of opportunity involves increased risk, which most often requires change. Change, relocation in particular, is difficult if not impossible for those in structured lifestyles. Toss in a lack of education or one with no market value, a social/family safety net and a cycle of dependence often lasting for endless generations quickly follows. They ain't gonna pick lettuce or work retail with several roommates to survive.

nanacat

Aug 10th 2011, 09:37 PM

I don't. I earned everything I own.

MMI, in my view of the world, formed by my experiences, your comment is not only uncharitable towards folks whose lives have been different, and perhaps more difficult than yours, but it's also a dangerous attitude to take. Here in the US, there are lots of people who will agree with you, claiming that they never got anything for free, so why should anyone else. But their "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop whining" boasts fall apart when you remind them of what they DID receive: Ever use public transportation? Ever use the public library system, or listen to NPR, or put a stamp on a letter? Ever get a student loan or grant? Ever have health insurance? Ever use the VA, however second-rate their services might be? Ever get a Fannie Mae mortgage? Ever get unemployment, even temporarily? Ever have an IRA? Plan on receiving Social Security benefits and Medicare someday? (With some luck, admittedly, on that one....)

I'm not putting down your efforts, believe me. And it's true, I don't know how it really is in Russia--I've learned a lot of interesting, NEW information from you in your posts. But the truth is, in the US at least, very few of us sail through our lives without depending at some time, in some way, on government assistance.

That doesn't always imply the damaging sense of entitlement you describe.

Zarquon

Aug 10th 2011, 10:13 PM

These rioters have been targeting prosperous Asian (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-08/11/c_131041599.htm) stores and neighborhoods, very despicable.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 10th 2011, 10:32 PM

Ever use public transportation?

Where I grew up, there wasn't any. These days i do, sometimes. I prefer to drive where I can though, more comfortable that way, even if I have to spend hours in Moscow's infamous traffic jams. But, I am lucky: my car has great air conditioning, unlike many who are in worse situation. Not the Lada Kalina. Russian cars don't come with conditioning, same as our tanks :rolleyes: But the BMW does
http://s2.images.drive2.ru/car.photos/1800/000/000/00a/455/88cadedb7f4febe1-original.jpg
Old model, yes, but in the 90s, this was #1 gangster car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hRC3C1nKgY). Still is. I drive somewhere, everyone gives me the way on the road. I love that :) So, no, I don't need public transport. :lol:

Ever use the public library system, or listen to NPR, or put a stamp on a letter?

I do borrow books from the library. Don't know what NPR is. I rarely write letters anymore. I phone all my family, and I use my mobile phone and e-mail to connect with people I do business with.

Ever get a student loan or grant?

Never. I actually don't even have a higher education.

Ever have health insurance?

I do now: it is mandatory. 5 years ago it wasn't and I didn't.

Ever use the VA, however second-rate their services might be?

Again, I don't know what that is.

Ever get a Fannie Mae mortgage?

?

Ever get unemployment, even temporarily?

I've been unemployed, never got anything for it. Nor is there anything really, in Russia. About 4 years ago, the American salvation Army wanted to set up food banks here, but then-Mayor Lushkov thought they were all CIA spies, so he did not let them in. That was that. :lol:

Ever have an IRA?

IRA? As in Irish Republican Army???

Plan on receiving Social Security benefits and Medicare someday? (With some luck, admittedly, on that one....)

No.

So, I am a bone fide self-made man, not like those Americans you've talked to :D

I'm not putting down your efforts, believe me. And it's true, I don't know how it really is in Russia--I've learned a lot of interesting, NEW information from you in your posts. But the truth is, in the US at least, very few of us sail through our lives without depending at some time, in some way, on government assistance.

That doesn't always imply the damaging sense of entitlement you describe.

Fair enough. The only thing one gets from the government here is a strong kick in the arse, if you come asking for assistance... There are those charity groups handing out cans of expired meat and such to homeless people. But you have to be actually homeless to get even that. :shrug:

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 11th 2011, 04:31 AM

The only thing one gets from the government here is a strong kick in the arse, if you come asking for assistance...

Well done, you are among the very very few Slavs/Germans/Scandinavians/Latins/Greeks I know, that uses the British term 'arse' rather than the American term 'ass' (which in Britain means 'donkey').

By the way, at the risk of making your ego even bigger, thus incurring the wrath of our fellow posters, where on earth did you learn such utterly amazing English? I'm being serious here.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 11th 2011, 11:33 AM

Well done, you are among the very very few Slavs/Germans/Scandinavians/Latins/Greeks I know, that uses the British term 'arse' rather than the American term 'ass' (which in Britain means 'donkey').

By the way, at the risk of making your ego even bigger, thus incurring the wrath of our fellow posters, where on earth did you learn such utterly amazing English? I'm being serious here.

I've traveled the world when I was in the Navy. And, as all in Russian military, I had to take language courses. I always had a talent for learning languages, at least so I was told... :shrug:

drgoodtrips

Aug 11th 2011, 04:44 PM

MMI, in my view of the world, formed by my experiences, your comment is not only uncharitable towards folks whose lives have been different, and perhaps more difficult than yours, but it's also a dangerous attitude to take. Here in the US, there are lots of people who will agree with you, claiming that they never got anything for free, so why should anyone else. But their "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop whining" boasts fall apart when you remind them of what they DID receive: Ever use public transportation? Ever use the public library system, or listen to NPR, or put a stamp on a letter? Ever get a student loan or grant? Ever have health insurance? Ever use the VA, however second-rate their services might be? Ever get a Fannie Mae mortgage? Ever get unemployment, even temporarily? Ever have an IRA? Plan on receiving Social Security benefits and Medicare someday? (With some luck, admittedly, on that one....)

For any or all of those questions, simple use of the service doesn't necessarily imply being given something. For example, if I take a subsidized class at the local park district or library, but my property taxes more than offset that subsidy, I don't have a net benefit in spite of availing myself of the service.

I would consider someone entirely self sufficient if that person't net outflows exceed the net in-flows. This still allows for the possibility of the generally politically liberal notion that the societal whole is more than the sum of its parts, mind you. I'm not suggesting that most people don't benefit from external societal factors and I'm especially not suggesting that we all don't collectively benefit from work and advancements that proceed us. My only point is that simply asking someone if they've ever used {insert public service} here doesn't prove that they've benefited from that service. It might just indicate an attitude of "I more than pay for it, so I might as well use it."

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 11th 2011, 05:06 PM

I've traveled the world when I was in the Navy. And, as all in Russian military, I had to take language courses. I always had a talent for learning languages, at least so I was told... :shrug:
And I'm telling you it as well. Your English is unbelievably good.

nanacat

Aug 12th 2011, 10:18 PM

MMI, regarding some of the abbreviations in my earlier post--sorry about that, I forgot this is an international forum. Here are some of them.

VA = Veteran's Administration. If you have ever served in the armed forces in the USA you are eligible for their services: doctors and hospital care (which used to be first rate--not anymore, sadly), funds for higher education, special loans when you undertake a mortgage, maybe other things, I'm not sure.

NPR = National Public Radio. Funded by private sponsors, and of late corporations as well, and minimally by the government. (Republicans are constantly looking to cut the 5% or so that the government does contribute, charging that NPR is Liberal. I don't believe it is. But then I *am* a Liberal.)

Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) = acronyms for certain government subsidized mortgages

IRA = Individual Retirement Account. A way you can save money for your retirement over a period of years without the government taxing you on your savings. (NOT the Irish Republican Army. Quite a few anti-Irish, anti-Catholic Brits got their collective knickers in a twist about a decade ago when a British tabloid announced: "McDonald's in the US to contribute to IRA's." :lol:)

And as I said on another thread, your English is "simply maahvelous!"

The Drunk Guy

Aug 13th 2011, 01:23 AM

IRA = Individual Retirement Account. A way you can save money for your retirement over a period of years without the government taxing you on your savings.
They don't tax the money that goes IN the fund, but they do tax as it comes OUT....a much larger sum of money. ;) I highly doubt the richest 1% uses an IRA for retirement. I'm just glad they're not union scumbags.

drgoodtrips

Aug 13th 2011, 10:45 AM

They don't tax the money that goes IN the fund, but they do tax as it comes OUT....a much larger sum of money. ;) I highly doubt the richest 1% uses an IRA for retirement. I'm just glad they're not union scumbags.

FWIW, in a traditional IRA, they tax the money when it comes out, but according to your current income levels. So, if you pump money into it when you're making the big bucks and take money out when you retire and live on fixed income, you don't take much of a tax hit. If you have a Roth IRA, there's no tax shelter up front but no tax on withdrawals.

Incidentally, I think it's an odd notion that using an IRA (or paying insurance) would constitute a form of social 'help'. IRA is a form of social engineering via the tax code to prod people into not depending on social security, and insurance is a scam to profit by collectivizing risk (i.e. it's more like a casino than anything else - designed for the house to win and the individual player to lose). I hadn't thought of it earlier, but the notion that these things are some form of "unearned help" is a curious one.

Americano

Aug 13th 2011, 11:47 AM

FWIW, in a traditional IRA, they tax the money when it comes out, but according to your current income levels. So, if you pump money into it when you're making the big bucks and take money out when you retire and live on fixed income, you don't take much of a tax hit. If you have a Roth IRA, there's no tax shelter up front but no tax on withdrawals.

Incidentally, I think it's an odd notion that using an IRA (or paying insurance) would constitute a form of social 'help'. IRA is a form of social engineering via the tax code to prod people into not depending on social security, and insurance is a scam to profit by collectivizing risk (i.e. it's more like a casino than anything else - designed for the house to win and the individual player to lose). I hadn't thought of it earlier, but the notion that these things are some form of "unearned help" is a curious one.

IRAs are a prime tool for transfer of perceived wealth from the working class upward via short selling. Let's see; 1987 equity market crash, 1998 (dot.com bubble) and the 2008 (real estate bubble) to date. Not that there's a defined pattern.........

Quite a stretch to define IRAs as a public service. Might as well include gaming casinos in that definition.

On topic, I seriously doubt looters are invested in retirement vehicles unless solely state provided. Libraries? Want to look at the literacy rate of that demographic? Public transportation? Graffiti applications and mugging opportunities.

The Drunk Guy

Aug 13th 2011, 11:57 AM

FWIW, in a traditional IRA, they tax the money when it comes out, but according to your current income levels. So, if you pump money into it when you're making the big bucks and take money out when you retire and live on fixed income, you don't take much of a tax hit. If you have a Roth IRA, there's no tax shelter up front but no tax on withdrawals.

Incidentally, I think it's an odd notion that using an IRA (or paying insurance) would constitute a form of social 'help'. IRA is a form of social engineering via the tax code to prod people into not depending on social security, and insurance is a scam to profit by collectivizing risk (i.e. it's more like a casino than anything else - designed for the house to win and the individual player to lose). I hadn't thought of it earlier, but the notion that these things are some form of "unearned help" is a curious one.
I was talking with a friend recently and he recently tried to invest some money in the market. He said when he spoke to a local investment firm, all they would talk about was the Roth IRA and didn't really want to discuss individual investments. That seems like a scary sign about the stability of a Roth IRA. :shrug:

The_Dot

Aug 13th 2011, 02:04 PM

Nobody ever wants to talk about why these things happen.

This guy was so poor and downtrodden that he took to the streets in righteous protest:

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2011/8/9/bca037fb-40e3-4ca9-bc7b-1442c5ae12b6_thumb.jpeg

Well, not really - he is just a thieving piece of shit who took the opportunity to be a thieving piece of shit (and then cleverly posted his face with his stolen goods on his YouTube page).

So, please enlighten us - why did this happen?

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 13th 2011, 02:11 PM

The Dot, that is an excellent post.:)

Zarquon

Aug 13th 2011, 09:49 PM

I wonder why such things don't seem to happen in the US.

Non Sequitur

Aug 13th 2011, 10:55 PM

I wonder why such things don't seem to happen in the US.

they do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots) and are pretty bad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot)

nanacat

Aug 14th 2011, 05:58 PM

they do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots) and are pretty bad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot)

Good examples. And don't forget this one, the whole city burned...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_riots

nanacat

Aug 14th 2011, 06:00 PM

Holy shit, I actually posted a source. Nana enters the 21st century after all!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::r ofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Donkey

Aug 14th 2011, 06:45 PM

So, please enlighten us - why did this happen?

I think the piece I posted from the Guardian was a pretty insightful examination of the situation. Did you read it?

The_Dot

Aug 14th 2011, 07:40 PM

I think the piece I posted from the Guardian was a pretty insightful examination of the situation. Did you read it?

I do not see anything in that article which justifies, or even remotely explains the grinning jackass on Facebook posing with his stolen loot.

Pray, can you explain the behavior? It seems to me there is no justification or explanation, just feeble excuse. But I could be wrong.

Donkey

Aug 14th 2011, 07:49 PM

I do not see anything in that article which justifies, or even remotely explains the grinning jackass on Facebook posing with his stolen loot.

Pray, can you explain the behavior? It seems to me there is no justification or explanation, just feeble excuse. But I could be wrong.

I don't think ANYONE is trying to justify the behavior. As for explaining it, I think it explains it pretty well, but that's a matter of perception I suppose. :shrug:

Michael

Aug 14th 2011, 08:36 PM

I heard today that there are plans for 8600 armed police officers to be out on the streets tonight. Talk about overkill....

And Donkey is right. Why is no one investigating the root cause of this violence? Without doing that, it's going to happen again. When will they learn that?

They don't want to 'learn anything' or admit anything is wrong and prefer to see the rioters as just some wild criminal scum to be stamped out. To see the situation otherwise requires thought, analysis and a response - something the authorities have in very short supply - especially when it makes themselves look bad.

In other words the only people apparently surprised by the riots are the government authorities. They are blissful in their ignorance and want to stay that way - it is so much easier.

Michael

Aug 14th 2011, 08:40 PM

I do not see anything in that article which justifies, or even remotely explains the grinning jackass on Facebook posing with his stolen loot.
No one is trying to justify anything. Proper analysis seeks to understand the phenomenum in question.

Pray, can you explain the behavior? It seems to me there is no justification or explanation, just feeble excuse. But I could be wrong.
Explain the behavior? What part of a riot needs explanation? And why? A riot is a riot.

Indeed, I think the Telegraph link that Donkey posted explains what was going on rather well.

Donkey

Aug 14th 2011, 08:55 PM

Btw, here's an interesting discussion of "The Mob" that Margot linked me to a while back.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/02/10/deindividuation/

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 14th 2011, 09:11 PM

I don't think ANYONE is trying to justify the behavior. As for explaining it, I think it explains it pretty well, but that's a matter of perception I suppose. :shrug:

Nothing justifies or explains attacking innocent people, looting and robbing businesses.

It does not matter if you are poor, or you have no education. I was poor and had no education when I came to Moscow. I know many who were the same way. But they did not turn to crime, even when they were desperate.

I'll give you a famous (famous here, anyway) example.

Once, a few years ago, two young men came to Moscow as migrant workers. Mikhail Galustian, 24 years old at the time, came from Armenia,
and Valeriy Magdyash, 28 - from Moldova. They worked on construction. Eventually, they met in a make-shift dorm house in a basement they both lived in. They became friends. As it turned out, they both had a passion for singing and acting. Their common dream became to make a film about the lives of gastarbaiters (migrant workers) in Russia. One time they were both a part of a team of workers hired to build a new sauna/pool house at the dacha of well-known
producer Semyon Slepakov. While they were working there, Mikhail put all his courage together and actually approached Slepakov and told him of his idea. Slepakov actually liked it.

Well, today Galustian and Magdyash are TV stars. Their comedy show 'Nasha Russia' ('Our Russia'), about gastarbaiters, is a hit, it is now in its fifth installment, and several full films have also been made from it
http://allcinema.ya1.ru/uploads/posts/2010-01/1263972258_nasha-rasha.jpg

Galustian on the left, Magdyash on right.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3900/4444yd6.jpghttp://www.comedyclub.ru/images/kino/photo_2_26.jpghttp://st3.kinopoisk.ru/im/kadr/1/1/6/kinopoisk.ru-Nasha-Russia_3A-Yaytsa-sudby-1168628.jpg

They made good lives for themselves, but also, through humour, they bring attention to the lives of other gastarbaiters, the problems and hardships they face, etc. Though, I will admit: this show is controversial: many groups and activists that work to defend and help the migrant workers, including my wife, say 'Nasha Russia' relies on crude stereotypes and makes fun of gastarbaiters. But, that is a matter of some other discussion. What I am trying to say is, even in this society, with luck and determination, you can make things happen for you. I am sure it is even easier in prosperous Britain, let alone America.

Those criminals have no excuse.

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 15th 2011, 12:24 AM

The_Dot

Aug 15th 2011, 12:02 PM

No one is trying to justify anything. Proper analysis seeks to understand the phenomenum in question.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities.

One, he could be a disaffected youth who isn't being given enough, or
Two, he's a thieving POS.

Personally, I'll go with #2 on this one.

Donkey

Aug 15th 2011, 02:21 PM

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 15th 2011, 02:34 PM

MeMyselfandI, the story about Mikhail Galustian and Valeriy Magdyash, would not have been famous, if their achievements had been something that everyone could do. A small minority of people have the strength to do what they did, but only a small minority.
And even if everyone DID have the strength, there is only room for so many such success stories.
You don't need to print stories like this, just point to any Brazilian footballer - it's okay to be living on the streets, because you can always train and become world-class footballer, and if you aren't good enough at football, that's your fault.
Your story is utterly unhelpful.

Oh there are many stories. There was a homeless man in Novosibirsk who saved money from bottles he collected and returned and, believe it or not, taught himself to buy and sell stock. In two years, he made enough money to get himself a decent apartment.

Although I concede this: Russia is a unique country in that our homeless are among the most well-educated on the planet. Former Soviet university professors are now living on the street, such are the times. One street man I regularly pass near the garages, on my way to work, I always see him reading Dostoevski or Tolstoy... Seriously. It is strange and also somewhat shameful IMHO

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 15th 2011, 02:36 PM

MeMyselfandI, I know there are many stories. Every Brazilian football star is a story just like what you tell.

But the stories are just a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the global poor.

The_Dot

Aug 15th 2011, 03:44 PM

And every single person who went out and rioted is just a thieving POS?

If they were rioting, as opposed to protesting, yes.

Burning buildings, beating people and stealing things is rioting, and has nothing whatsoever to do with protesting.

What do you call this proud thief's activities?

Michael

Aug 15th 2011, 05:50 PM

It seems to me that there are two possibilities.

One, he could be a disaffected youth who isn't being given enough, or
Two, he's a thieving POS.

Personally, I'll go with #2 on this one.

Sure. But one 'thieving POS' does not a riot make. I should think that most thieves are opportunists - if a riot is going on, that's a good time to go stealing. But thieves didn't create or sustain the riot in a half-dozen cities for several days - they are just one element of the participants.

That is to say, a major riot occured in UK - regardless if any opportunistic thieves did some 'smash & grab' on high street shops. Thus, it is interesting and worthy of analysis is why the riot took place in the first place - not the actions of any given individual thief who may have participated. Indeed, opportunist thieves are a dime a dozen and quite predictable.

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 15th 2011, 06:11 PM

The riots are protests. Protests against hard honest work. The rioters can't stand the thought of hard work, and they think that it should be abolished.

Donkey

Aug 15th 2011, 06:37 PM

:wanker:

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 15th 2011, 06:41 PM

:wanker:
Michael, Donkey is making an obscene gesture. Banish him from the forum... for EVER!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:

Michael

Aug 15th 2011, 06:42 PM

The riots are protests. Protests against hard honest work. The rioters can't stand the thought of hard work, and they think that it should be abolished.

And your source for this information is...

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 15th 2011, 06:45 PM

And your source for this information is...

I've lived in England, and it has been brewing for years. Some of the street urchins are so spoilt!!! Demanding the most expensive of everything, jeering at anyone who shops at 2nd-hand shops, while similtaneously being too lazy to work.

Michael

Aug 15th 2011, 06:48 PM

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 15th 2011, 06:51 PM

So if you admit that "this has been brewing for years" you have to acknowledge that 'something' caused this slow brew. That's the issue we're interested in here.

Fact is, this riot didn't just spontaneously occur and it didn't consist of just a bunch of non-white people acting like opportunistic theives. There's more to this story than that and you've admitted that yourself.
I know you don't like clicking video links, but this 4 minute-job (made 10 years ago) tells us all about a certain kind of young person that has been creeping up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Khj7ZHMSo

Michael

Aug 15th 2011, 06:56 PM

I know you don't like clicking video links, but this 4 minute-job (made 10 years ago) tells us all about a certain kind of young person that has been creeping up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Khj7ZHMSo

I don't need a Youtube video to know that UK has some serious social problems and a substantially large underclass. I already know that. Fact is, the government of UK has done pretty much nothing about that long festering problem. One might easily argue that the government has been complicit in creating and fostering that underclass.

Fact is this riot wasn't just a bunch of 'criminal scum' doing smash & grabs. That certainly happened under the cover of a riot, but that's not what triggered the riot nor what sustained it and helped it spread to other cities.

And if it was 'brewing for years' as you say, why is the government trying to pretend that they had no idea that a problem even existed, let alone was on the verge of exploding? Some of these statements just don't add up.

Btw, it is the official UK government position on the riots that this was just criminal scum going on a looting spree. That is apparently a 100% explanation of the event. But as you admit, the problem has been brewing for years - which suggests that there is more to the riots than just some criminal scum opportunistically doing smash & grabs. Suffice it to say that I consider these views to be contradictory.

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 15th 2011, 07:01 PM

Michael

Aug 15th 2011, 07:04 PM

Michael, you are falling into the trap of thinking that people like me, who believe that the streets are full of lazy people who want want want, and don't want to give, all think the Government is perfect.

A rotten government makes a rotten people.

Under your precious First Past the Post system, you either vote for one of the Big 2 Parties (who have both compromised with the Murdochs in the past), or you WASTE your vote on a party that hasn't compromised with the Murdochs.

In short, the Murdochs win every time. And they symbolise the dumb-down-culture, with their vile News-of-the-World and The Sun newspaper.

This is why I wanted the AV system. Then Britain would have been free from the Murdochs.
My "precious" first past the post system? :rolleyes:

First of all, it is called "plurality voting". Secondly, it isn't precious - I tend to prefer it because it is slightly more effective than other methods.

As for voting, you have the opportunity to spoil or refuse your ballot or vote for any one of a dozen other independent parties. That you ignore these options and insist on voting only with the two big parties is YOUR choice, not mine.

Indeed, what you bitch about is what you perhaps have helped create.

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 15th 2011, 07:10 PM

Only a few people have discovered that Murdochs have ridiculously much power. But we aren't represented in Parliament unless we vote for one of the two Murdoch-parties.

Donkey

Aug 15th 2011, 08:15 PM

Michael, Donkey is making an obscene gesture. Banish him from the forum... for EVER!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:

You should see what I'm doing in real life.

Americano

Aug 15th 2011, 08:16 PM

Opinions of class distinction and attributing varying degrees of social unrest to it are accurate but I don't read anyone offering viable solutions to what has persisted throughout history regardless of governing ideology. Posters, bloggers and specialized media reps all carefully and accurately define root causes, generally blaming pick an involved government and that ruling elite, while muttering equality, education, opportunity and other utopian desires solely dependent on non-existent economic parameters.

So what happens until that desired, obviously futuristic utopia is achieved? Suppress looters with whatever it takes or let them run their course? I ask because all indicators point to long-term deterioration of economic conditions in the UK....and the US.

The_Dot

Aug 15th 2011, 08:33 PM

If they were rioting, as opposed to protesting, yes.

Burning buildings, beating people and stealing things is rioting, and has nothing whatsoever to do with protesting.

What do you call this proud thief's activities?

Donkey?

Donkey

Aug 15th 2011, 09:26 PM

Donkey?

:shrug:

One thief who posts his shit on facebook is a thief who posts his shit on facebook. Systematic violence across a country isn't the work of petty thieves.

The_Dot

Aug 16th 2011, 06:52 AM

:shrug:

One thief who posts his shit on facebook is a thief who posts his shit on facebook. Systematic violence across a country isn't the work of petty thieves.

So would you agree that this guy is not a "protestor" engaged in any righteous cause?

Donkey

Aug 16th 2011, 10:21 AM

So would you agree that this guy is not a "protestor" engaged in any righteous cause?

I never said that he was anything of the sort.

The_Dot

Aug 16th 2011, 11:48 AM

I never said that he was anything of the sort.

Well, you asked about the reasons behind what has happened.

Clearly, for some, the reasons are not noble in any form.

The question becomes, what portion of the folks on the streets were there to protest, and what portion were there simply to engage in mayhem for entertainment / material gain / bloody mindedness?

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 16th 2011, 12:23 PM

The Dot in general I agree with you. I lived in England for many years, and the attitude of some young people sucks big time. Want the most expensive, want to do the least work, sneer at menial labour.

However, adults don't help the situation, when they make jokes about people who pick fruit and so on (which I write about on another thread, the one about An Ugly Side of Norway).

And let's face it, many adults are guilty of showing contempt for menial labour. That isn't exactly going to stop the looting, is it?

I repeat, I find myself on your side in general, and the violent looting can not be excused and must be punished, as it's the only language those yobs understand.

Please look at this video. It should have been a warning to us, when it was made a few years back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6e8o9eefIY

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 16th 2011, 02:12 PM

This article really explains much.
http://kp.ru/daily/25736/2725798/
I am too tired to translate all of it, but I'll give you the main points.

The main problem is with the British parenting and educational system: it is too meek and liberal. Children can actually sue their parents, or at least threaten to, they can complain to the authorities against them. All this creates an environment where parents and teachers are unable to discipline the young.

Children in the West have "rights"... This is a complete shock to me, and to most people here in Russia, we read this article. Children here are brought up with "responcibilities", not rights, and parents have the full power to raise their children as they see fit, and if that includes the leather belt, so be it. With boys particularly. Girls don't get whipped so much, because, well, they are girls. They are delicate. One should not hit them. They are future mothers and all that. But with boys, it is fine
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9100/porka.jpg
:lol:

I am not saying physical punishment is always the right answer. I personally cannot yet tell you if I will punish my own son that way when he is old enough. Maybe.

But the Cossacks, for example, who are considred the most disciplined and orderly society in our country, who live by a military-style subordination system use whipping with their traditional nagaika
http://www.origi.ru/file/101.jpg
as their favorite method of punishment. A krug (Cossack tribal court) can and does sentence both children and adults to whipping with a nagaika. For a man caught drinking or in posession of alcohol, in many Cossack communities it is 30 strikes with a nagaika. It is very effective, at least so say statistics: Cossack youth are the least criminal in our country; and they have perhaps lowest levels of alcoholism.
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/183533_10150152390096558_721246557_8515857_6504920 _n.jpghttp://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/150801_10150097295201558_721246557_7708743_1608337 _n.jpg
When one compares this to Moscow youth
http://moltat.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/p6112797.jpgOne quickly understands why Cossacks look down upon people from Moscow.

And traditional Old Orthodox families are the same way, children are kept in line, strictly. We are not ultra-militarists, like the Cossacks, we don't wear uniforms all day, and children do not have to address their parents by their rank. But our children are expected to contrivute to all labor in the household, help their parents.
http://www.centerasia.ru/uploads/posts/2008-06/1213978253_5.jpg
Laziness is absolutely and severely punished. I was whipped many times in my childhood, by my father, and grandfather also, with belts, with a stick once. I like to think it made me a better person now.

I think that's the recipe for Britain: start disciplining your young.

Donkey

Aug 16th 2011, 02:19 PM

I think that's the recipe for Britain: start disciplining your young.

Won't do a goddamn thing if there's still no chance for a decent future.

Americano

Aug 16th 2011, 02:19 PM

The Dot in general I agree with you. I lived in England for many years, and the attitude of some young people sucks big time. Want the most expensive, want to do the least work, sneer at menial labour.

You make a point I've brought up in the past regarding US young adults. There are menial jobs in the US, enough to drive what many consider a problem with undocumented, illegal immigrants. Why? Americans consider those jobs beneath them. Not a living wage is the common retort, even though undocumented workers manage to live and send money to their relatives in other countries. As the number of young adults living at home or subsidized by parents continues growing. Some call it lazy, others dress it up for the public as a lack of opportunity.

However, adults don't help the situation, when they make jokes about people who pick fruit and so on (which I write about on another thread, the one about An Ugly Side of Norway).

And let's face it, many adults are guilty of showing contempt for menial labour. That isn't exactly going to stop the looting, is it?

I repeat, I find myself on your side in general, and the violent looting can not be excused and must be punished, as it's the only language those yobs understand.

Please look at this video. It should have been a warning to us, when it was made a few years back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6e8o9eefIY

Americano

Aug 16th 2011, 02:32 PM

Donkey

Aug 16th 2011, 02:37 PM

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Hmmm.

Donkey

Aug 16th 2011, 02:47 PM

"What is happening to our young
people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They
ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions.
Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

The more things change, eh?

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 16th 2011, 03:24 PM

Donkey

Aug 16th 2011, 03:26 PM

Plato... lol.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 16th 2011, 03:56 PM

Plato... lol.

Well, I suppose ancient Greece had the same problem.

And that's one reason Constantinople is called Istanbul today. I believe all great empires fell when their peoples softened in their bodies and their convictions. Roman Empire fell to the barbarians because fat, spoiled Romans could not fight back against the barbarians raw, savage power.

Michael

Aug 16th 2011, 05:44 PM

It hasn't been all that long ago in the US when school officials, with the full support of parents, administered physical discipline to unruly students using belts and paddles. When their parents were notified, the first question to the student upon arrival at home was what did you do to receive the whipping and those students most often faced the same punishment at home.

There were few discipline problems in public schools or on the streets as police were also engaged in meting out physical discipline to errant youth.

And then came Vietnam and people learned that the state/government authorities can and will lie to the people. All the goodwill faith in authority just went out the window. Now if a school principal wants to discipline a student, I want to know if the Principal is just doing it cover his ass, or to cover-up some other administration failing or if it is his own fetish. The thought that an authority figure might be motivated by the honor of doing the right thing doesn't even occur to me - their track record is just so bad that it seems as if anyone who trusts authority figures is either ignorant or stupid. There is just too much evidence out there.

And that's why kids don't get physically punished at school - no one trusts the judgement of authority figures any more - with good reason - they lie and they will sacrifice your kid to protect their own skins/jobs/prestige.

Michael

Aug 16th 2011, 05:46 PM

The Drunk Guy

Aug 16th 2011, 06:17 PM

I think that's a rather simplistic and erroneous description of the Fall of the Roman Empire.

:D I picture fat Romans being carried into battle on pillowed palanquins powered by weak, eunich slaves. Sword in one hand and a hunk of meat in the other. :rofl:

Michael

Aug 16th 2011, 07:48 PM

Well, I suppose ancient Greece had the same problem.

And that's one reason Constantinople is called Istanbul today. I believe all great empires fell when their peoples softened in their bodies and their convictions. Roman Empire fell to the barbarians because fat, spoiled Romans could not fight back against the barbarians raw, savage power.

I think that's a rather simplistic and erroneous description of the Fall of the Roman Empire.

:D I picture fat Romans being carried into battle on pillowed palanquins powered by weak, eunich slaves. Sword in one hand and a hunk of meat in the other. :rofl:

:lol:

To be very brief, the [Western] Roman Empire's armies were, for several centuries [post 180AD], almost entirely filled with the same raw barbarian savages as they were fighting against. Indeed, the best and most dangerous barbarians were the double-turncoats - the ones who became Roman mercenaries and advanced to became Roman-trained generals and then turned back to lead the barbarian armies against Rome.

But no, Western Rome never really failed militarily (though this is debatable). The key to Western Rome's fall was entirely economic - before the split of the Empire, 75% of the tax revenue came from the Eastern half but 75% of the army was based in the Western half. Btw, the army made up about 90% of the cost of the Roman state (a standing army of 300,000-350,000 troops). Once the Empire split, the Western half was doomed - they needed a HUGE army and they couldn't afford to pay for one. They held on rather bravely for a couple centuries but the writing was on the wall for the Western Roman Empire.

I think if the accusation of 'softness' is to be made against the Roman Empire, it may perhaps be the Eastern Roman Empire (aka the Byzantines) to whom it might apply - as they really did seem to 'fold' under the pressure from the Arabs and Turks in the 10th-11th century (Constantinople was even sacked by Western Crusaders in the 12th century - supposedly coming to 'help' the Byzantines!). Again, they held on bravely for another four centuries after all those losses under difficult odds, so it is hard to accuse them of 'softness' either. :shrug:

Americano

Aug 16th 2011, 08:30 PM

And then came Vietnam and people learned that the state/government authorities can and will lie to the people. All the goodwill faith in authority just went out the window. Now if a school principal wants to discipline a student, I want to know if the Principal is just doing it cover his ass, or to cover-up some other administration failing or if it is his own fetish. The thought that an authority figure might be motivated by the honor of doing the right thing doesn't even occur to me - their track record is just so bad that it seems as if anyone who trusts authority figures is either ignorant or stupid. There is just too much evidence out there.

And that's why kids don't get physically punished at school - no one trusts the judgement of authority figures any more - with good reason - they lie and they will sacrifice your kid to protect their own skins/jobs/prestige.

That was a small part of it, the major change being publicized sociologists constructing perfect scenarios for raising middle-class children in an ideal family home/school which included adamant condemnation of using physical force in disciplining children.

First came the 'time out' where a child was placed facing a wall to 'contemplate' a misdeed. That didn't seem to be working as there was still a large percentage of parents not raising children under ideal circumstances and ongoing incidents of child abuse. Children under legal age were then given rights to report a parent who physically struck them and such parents faced jail time for doing so with no questions asked. No big surprise, child abuse didn't drop but many parents were discovering their sweet darlings were turning into uncontrollable social monsters and nightmare teenagers/young adults. Many US public schools are little more than very expensive detention camps.

The one size fits all social engineering failure syndrome.

Not everyone lives in a carefully constructed, perfect scenario. Most don't. Some kids do need their asses kicked to recognize the often drastic difference between right and wrong.

Michael

Aug 16th 2011, 08:35 PM

That was a small part of it, the major change being publicized sociologists constructing perfect scenarios for raising middle-class children in an ideal family home/school which included adamant condemnation of using physical force in disciplining children.
Yes, that's true - I forgot that came out at pretty much exactly the same time period.

The combination was a powerful one.

Americano

Aug 16th 2011, 09:27 PM

:lol:

To be very brief, the [Western] Roman Empire's armies were, for several centuries [post 180AD], almost entirely filled with the same raw barbarian savages as they were fighting against. Indeed, the best and most dangerous barbarians were the double-turncoats - the ones who became Roman mercenaries and advanced to became Roman-trained generals and then turned back to lead the barbarian armies against Rome.

But no, Western Rome never really failed militarily (though this is debatable). The key to Western Rome's fall was entirely economic - before the split of the Empire, 75% of the tax revenue came from the Eastern half but 75% of the army was based in the Western half. Btw, the army made up about 90% of the cost of the Roman state (a standing army of 300,000-350,000 troops). Once the Empire split, the Western half was doomed - they needed a HUGE army and they couldn't afford to pay for one. They held on rather bravely for a couple centuries but the writing was on the wall for the Western Roman Empire.

My history lessons on that era were long ago but wasn't the end hastened by extended drought creating repeated crop failures in much of the empire resulting in drastically reduced tax revenue in the form of grain also used as the primary diet of the legions? I know the legions ate anything they could get their hands on including all types of meat but remember grain tax being the economic basis of ongoing occupation loot. Soldiers not paid or fed quickly change loyalties.

I think if the accusation of 'softness' is to be made against the Roman Empire, it may perhaps be the Eastern Roman Empire (aka the Byzantines) to whom it might apply - as they really did seem to 'fold' under the pressure from the Arabs and Turks in the 10th-11th century (Constantinople was even sacked by Western Crusaders in the 12th century - supposedly coming to 'help' the Byzantines!). Again, they held on bravely for another four centuries after all those losses under difficult odds, so it is hard to accuse them of 'softness' either. :shrug:

Donkey

Aug 16th 2011, 09:57 PM

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 16th 2011, 11:45 PM

The idea that you have to beat your child to make them turn into a decent human being is absolutely ludicrous.

Indeed, these kids that all y'all are gleefully and arrogantly disparaging probably saw more than their fair share of parental "physical discipline."

Jfc.

It is not about 'beating'. It is about instilling in them a healthy respect for authority, for their elders, and their community.

And those children who rioted in Britain did not have enough of any of those, at least partly due to a society that encourages over-coddling, spoiling and impunity from parents; and culture of entitlement, selfishness, yes indeed, arrogance from those children. A society, a civilization, where underaged children can SUE their parents for disciplining them... is doomed. That's it. :shrug::sorry:

Donkey

Aug 16th 2011, 11:56 PM

What constitutes discipline? A spanking? A belting? A 2x4?

Sorry, but that's a load of shit. If you can't raise your kids to behave without beating them, you are a bad parent.

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 17th 2011, 03:55 AM

MeMyselfandI how has Russian society benefitted from your idea of disciplining children?

The_Dot

Aug 17th 2011, 09:32 AM

The idea that you have to beat your child to make them turn into a decent human being is absolutely ludicrous.

Indeed, these kids that all y'all are gleefully and arrogantly disparaging probably saw more than their fair share of parental "physical discipline."

Jfc.

I don't see anything "arrogant" in disparaging the actions of thieves, murderers and arsonists.

As far as glee, I don't see any here. Sympathy for the true victims, but no glee.

The true victims here are the shop owners and residents who had their livelihoods stolen, or their homes burned to the ground.

But hey, that's the cost of "sticking it to the man", eh?

Donkey

Aug 17th 2011, 09:35 AM

But hey, that's the cost of "sticking it to the man", eh?

No. That is the cost of systematically and deliberately dismantling society.

The_Dot

Aug 17th 2011, 09:38 AM

No. That is the cost of systematically and deliberately dismantling society.

Oh, rubbish.

Are you saying that the people who are out murdering, burning and robbing are doing so out of a sense of social injustice?

If anything, these violent rioters are ensuring that things get worse, not better.

Donkey

Aug 17th 2011, 09:41 AM

Are you saying that the people who are out murdering, burning and robbing are doing so out of a sense of social injustice?

Yes. Whether or not that sense is articulated is irrelevant.

The_Dot

Aug 17th 2011, 09:45 AM

Yes. Whether or not that sense is articulated is irrelevant.

And how do you know this? Was, for instance, the photo of the douche on the couch with his stolen loot somehow indicative of how the man has kept him down?

Does burning some poor woman's home (and nearly burning her alive) express some legitimate grievance with society? How?

It seems to me like you see deeper meaning in this senseless violence more from desire to find it than from evidence it exists.

dilettante

Aug 17th 2011, 09:46 AM

It is not about 'beating'. It is about instilling in them a healthy respect for authority, for their elders, and their community.

Some might argue that engaging in violence against someone is not the most effective way of earning their 'healthy respect.'

Donkey

Aug 17th 2011, 09:51 AM

And how do you know this? Was, for instance, the photo of the douche on the couch with his stolen loot somehow indicative of how the man has kept him down?

Does burning some poor woman's home (and nearly burning her alive) express some legitimate grievance with society? How?

It seems to me like you see deeper meaning in this senseless violence more from desire to find it than from evidence it exists.

Look. Any way you slice it, hordes of youth don't riot across an entire country at the drop of a hat if society is content. Whether they were trying to take down a broken system, or merely wanted some free shit does not matter. What matters is that the system is broken. Any condemnation of the violence without a sincere analysis of why it happened is pointless.

And I'm sorry, but explaining it by saying that thousands of kids rioted because their parents didn't beat them enough is fucking ludicrous.

dilettante

Aug 17th 2011, 09:58 AM

Are you saying that the people who are out murdering, burning and robbing are doing so out of a sense of social injustice?

In some ways that kind of conclusion is inevitable.

If you have a vast number of people who decide, en mass, to violate the basic norms that hold society together (i.e. engage in crimes against persons and property) then you have a large segment of population who don't think the current society is worth preserving. Such feelings almost always include the sentiment that society is, somehow unjust.

To be clear, that does not legitimize the crimes of the rioters; the worst of them certainly deserve punishment for the pain and destruction they've wrought. But it would be supremely fool hardy not to seriously consider why all those people felt so loose an attachment to society that they were willing to engage in its destruction.

It's like finding tumors in the body; the tumor is bad, it's destroying the body and you have to cut it out. But if you find lots of tumors, or if they keep coming back, then you'd better start looking for a larger cause; something is making the body's cells turn against it; something other than the tumors themselves is going wrong.

Americano

Aug 17th 2011, 10:15 AM

I don't see anything "arrogant" in disparaging the actions of thieves, murderers and arsonists.

As far as glee, I don't see any here. Sympathy for the true victims, but no glee.

The true victims here are the shop owners and residents who had their livelihoods stolen, or their homes burned to the ground.

But hey, that's the cost of "sticking it to the man", eh?

Unfortunately there's no new Australia for the UK to dump the dregs of its society. As societal costs for indigent maintenance reach those of incarceration the stable portion of that society will eventually tire of willful destruction and impose draconian measures to curb it.

Water cannon are a first good step for crowd control but insurer actuaries aren't going to accept a 24-hour response time in coverage for civil disturbances. The UK needs to use its military resources to quickly supply and position that equipment for such actions.

Donkey

Aug 17th 2011, 10:19 AM

Unfortunately there's no new Australia for the UK to dump the dregs of its society. As societal costs for indigent maintenance reach those of incarceration the stable portion of that society will eventually tire of willful destruction and impose draconian measures to curb it.

Water cannon are a first good step for crowd control but insurer actuaries aren't going to accept a 24-hour response time in coverage for civil disturbances. The UK needs to use its military resources to quickly supply and position that equipment for such actions.

Yeah it's working great in Syria.

You wanna talk about entitlements... how 'bout feeling entitled to have the agents of fascism protect you from the breakdown of society that you've done nothing to aid.

Americano

Aug 17th 2011, 10:27 AM

In some ways that kind of conclusion is inevitable.

If you have a vast number of people who decide, en mass, to violate the basic norms that hold society together (i.e. engage in crimes against persons and property) then you have a large segment of population who don't think the current society is worth preserving. Such feelings almost always include the sentiment that society is, somehow unjust.

To be clear, that does not legitimize the crimes of the rioters; the worst of them certainly deserve punishment for the pain and destruction they've wrought. But it would be supremely fool hardy not to seriously consider why all those people felt so loose an attachment to society that they were willing to engage in its destruction.

It's like finding tumors in the body; the tumor is bad, it's destroying the body and you have to cut it out. But if you find lots of tumors, or if they keep coming back, then you'd better start looking for a larger cause; something is making the body's cells turn against it; something other than the tumors themselves is going wrong.

I was under the impression that simple economics are the core problem. That portion of society, the rioters, for a variety of reasons, is unable to achieve a standard of living comparable to the stable portion of society and it takes what it desires, by force.

Communism didn't work as advertised, so what do you recommend to remedy the situation?

The Drunk Guy

Aug 17th 2011, 10:59 AM

dilettante

Aug 17th 2011, 12:12 PM

I was under the impression that simple economics are the core problem. That portion of society, the rioters, for a variety of reasons, is unable to achieve a standard of living comparable to the stable portion of society and it takes what it desires, by force.

Communism didn't work as advertised, so what do you recommend to remedy the situation?

Economics no doubt play a major role. One doesn't have to be a communist to wonder if the gap between the super-rich and the desperately-poor (while inevitable) hasn't widened too much, or if economic mobility (while always challenging) hasn't become ceased to exist for those in the lowest strata.

I suspect there's also a cultural component. A lack of pride in the nation/community, a loss of hope, optimism and (dare I say) values; things which could compensate for relatively poorer standards of living and keep violence in check.

The_Dot

Aug 17th 2011, 12:27 PM

Look. Any way you slice it, hordes of youth don't riot across an entire country at the drop of a hat if society is content. Whether they were trying to take down a broken system, or merely wanted some free shit does not matter. What matters is that the system is broken. Any condemnation of the violence without a sincere analysis of why it happened is pointless.

And I'm sorry, but explaining it by saying that thousands of kids rioted because their parents didn't beat them enough is fucking ludicrous.

"Whether they were trying to take down a broken system, or merely wanted some free shit does not matter."

Of course it matters. If they were trying to "take down a broken system", then it makes sense to figure out why they think the system is broken and see what changes can be made.

If, on the other hand, the violence / theft is just arising from what my English friend calls "bloodymindedness", then there isn't a way to fix the system to avoid it.

I mean, really, what systemic fix is there for someone who takes advantage of the situation to go cop some "free shit"? Make everything free, so theft is impossible? Kill the thieves so they don't steal again? Neither solution seems viable...

Donkey

Aug 17th 2011, 12:29 PM

"Whether they were trying to take down a broken system, or merely wanted some free shit does not matter."

Of course it matters. If they were trying to "take down a broken system", then it makes sense to figure out why they think the system is broken and see what changes can be made.

If, on the other hand, the violence / theft is just arising from what my English friend calls "bloodymindedness", then there isn't a way to fix the system to avoid it.

I mean, really, what systemic fix is there for someone who takes advantage of the situation to go cop some "free shit"? Make everything free, so theft is impossible? Kill the thieves so they don't steal again? Neither solution seems viable...
Child abuse is apparently the panacea. :rolleyes:

The_Dot

Aug 17th 2011, 12:37 PM

Child abuse is apparently the panacea. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

I'm not the one that suggested that, so why reply to me about it?

I guess it is easier than addressing a point which doesn't align with your dogma.

:shrug:

Donkey

Aug 17th 2011, 12:40 PM

:rolleyes:

I'm not the one that suggested that, so why reply to me about it?

I guess it is easier than addressing a point which doesn't align with your dogma.

:shrug:

I didn't mean to imply that it was your position.

But what "dogma" are you referring to? I've advocated neither "making everything free," nor killing the protesters, so I don't see how your point applies to me.

The_Dot

Aug 17th 2011, 12:45 PM

I didn't mean to imply that it was your position.

But what "dogma" are you referring to? I've advocated neither "making everything free," nor killing the protesters, so I don't see how your point applies to me.

You've maintained that the motive of the rioters / protesters does not matter.

I argued that it clearly does, and you've declined to address it.

If someone participated just to steal some "free shit", how does that reflect a systemis issue which can be addressed?

Americano

Aug 17th 2011, 12:46 PM

Economics no doubt play a major role. One doesn't have to be a communist to wonder if the gap between the super-rich and the desperately-poor (while inevitable) hasn't widened too much, or if economic mobility (while always challenging) hasn't become ceased to exist for those in the lowest strata.

I suspect there's also a cultural component. A lack of pride in the nation/community, a loss of hope, optimism and (dare I say) values; things which could compensate for relatively poorer standards of living and keep violence in check.

Given those somewhat standard conditions in current society, I'm unaware of any UK/US economic mobility for the impoverished in the past 30 years (or more), the future outlook seems bleak for that demographic. Governments in that circumstance will be forced by the stable portion of society to choose between increased entitlement and/or harsher containment.

Donkey

Aug 17th 2011, 12:55 PM

You've maintained that the motive of the rioters / protesters does not matter.

I argued that it clearly does, and you've declined to address it.

If someone participated just to steal some "free shit", how does that reflect a systemis issue which can be addressed?

Ah. Ok. What I meant is that it doesn't matter whether each, or indeed any, of the rioters thought that what they were doing was restoring justice to society, or righting wrongs, or whatever class-conscience nonsense you (not you, Dot, I mean the general you).

If a dam breaks, it doesn't mean that every molecule of water says "OH FUCK YEAH! WE'RE TOTALLY GONNA FLOOD THIS PLANE AND FIND OUR NATURAL LEVEL!"

It matters that the dam is structurally unsound.

Well, the dam broke.

The_Dot

Aug 17th 2011, 01:07 PM

Ah. Ok. What I meant is that it doesn't matter whether each, or indeed any, of the rioters thought that what they were doing was restoring justice to society, or righting wrongs, or whatever class-conscience nonsense you (not you, Dot, I mean the general you).

If a dam breaks, it doesn't mean that every molecule of water says "OH FUCK YEAH! WE'RE TOTALLY GONNA FLOOD THIS PLANE AND FIND OUR NATURAL LEVEL!"

It matters that the dam is structurally unsound.

Well, the dam broke.

I just can't see it. Burning people's homes, stealing shit, and killing people for no apparent reason restores justice to society?

Seems more like it expands injustice and turns more people against each other to me.

Donkey

Aug 17th 2011, 01:11 PM

I just can't see it. Burning people's homes, stealing shit, and killing people for no apparent reason restores justice to society?

Seems more like it expands injustice and turns more people against each other to me.

I've said nothing of the sort. I've said that it's evidence of a broken society. I don't applaud the riots, I'm just dismayed that anyone finds them surprising.

Michael

Aug 17th 2011, 06:12 PM

I just can't see it. Burning people's homes, stealing shit, and killing people for no apparent reason restores justice to society?

Seems more like it expands injustice and turns more people against each other to me.

Well, what you describe could be a figurative description of the US rebellion against Britain in 1776. Alternatively, it could describe the French rebellion against the ancient regime in 1789. Yet again, it could also describe the US invasion of Iraq. All of the above events are claimed to have 'brought justice'.

Politics can be a messy business. :shrug:

The Drunk Guy

Aug 17th 2011, 06:46 PM

Well, what you describe could be a figurative description of the US rebellion against Britain in 1776. Alternatively, it could describe the French rebellion against the ancient regime in 1789. Yet again, it could also describe the US invasion of Iraq. All of the above events are claimed to have 'brought justice'.

Politics can be a messy business. :shrug:

Freedom costs a buck oh five.

Americano

Aug 17th 2011, 06:50 PM

Politics can be a messy business. :shrug:

Yes, and seldom if ever do idealists achieve their utopian goals as humans seeking power and wealth are involved in ownership of all politicians. I've always enjoyed the theory that if all wealth was suddenly equally divided in a country, within two generations that distribution would revert back to its original status.

MeMyselfAndI

Aug 17th 2011, 08:00 PM

Well, you can say what you want about revolutions, how they bring justice, and all that.

But here in Russia, we know now two things.

1. The 1917 Revolution killed at least 5,000,000 people in the esnuing Civil War, and resulted in a regime that killed millions or maybe tens of millions more over the nexy several decades.

2. The 1991 'Yeltsin Revolution' as we sometimes call it, brought about all the problems we have today: terrorism, violence, crime, corruption, wars, inter-ethnic hatred between many peoples of the former Union, and general degradation and moral and physical decay of all our societies, whether in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, or Tajikistan.

That is why the majority of Russians today, overwhelming majority, I would say 90%, want only one responce from their government to any attempt at a 'color revolution' or any kind of street uprising
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_2CvkTAzf5wQ/TbcmcJdRPmI/AAAAAAAAJdo/dBFgL9Vdgcw/DSC_7397.jpgPeriod. No more revolutions for us. That's it.

Americano

Aug 17th 2011, 09:31 PM

The US formerly had that attitude. After ww2 political strategy decided campaign promises to minorities, idealists and groups supporting wedge issues that didn't have to be implemented could win elections. A few bucks in entitlements went a long way until the masses discovered they could vote themselves tax money with threats. Not surprisingly, the UK went in that same direction. Now that economic circumstances have drastically changed, it'll be interesting to observe which way the pendulum swings.

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 18th 2011, 01:20 AM

British judges/magistrates have imposed a 6-month prison sentence on a looter who stole 10 packets of chewing-gum.

This is just one example of getting tough on the looters, and I support these measures, because Britain has certainly become to soft on criminals.

Donkey

Aug 18th 2011, 09:20 AM

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 18th 2011, 09:27 AM

And when the dreadful chewing-gum marauder gets out of prison in six months? What kind of opportunities await?

Donkey, had it been an isolated incident, it would of course have been too harsh a sentence.

But in this case certain things have to be taken into consideration:

-mass lootings make it easier for the criminals to get away with what they are doing. This looters presence made it easier for more serious criminals to do the bad things that they did.

-the riots had terrible consequences, and all the rioters must take some responsibility.

Britain has to defend itself, and 6 months in prison for a looting-participant is a humanitarian way of doing so.

In answer to your question:
England is an enlightened country and I'm sure the government will have a plan for helping former convicts back into work.

Donkey

Aug 18th 2011, 09:33 AM

Donkey, had it been an isolated incident, it would of course have been too harsh a sentence.

But in this case certain things have to be taken into consideration:

-mass lootings make it easier for the criminals to get away with what they are doing. This looters presence made it easier for more serious criminals to do the bad things that they did.

-the riots had terrible consequences, and all the rioters must take some responsibility.

Britain has to defend itself, and 6 months in prison for a looting-participant is a humanitarian way of doing so.
I made no comment on the severity of the sentence.

In answer to your question:
England is an enlightened country and I'm sure the government will have a plan for helping former convicts back into work.
Enlightened eh? Then why did they find themselves in a situation that all of their major cities were burning for the better part of the week. David Cameron is a fucking idiot, and Nu-Labour ain't much better.

Edit: a nice quick little essay on the fail-tastic response from David Cameron: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/opinion/wrong-answers-in-britain.html?_r=3&hp

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 18th 2011, 09:37 AM

There is no longer any New Labour.

Ed Milliband is the Trade Unions' choice as leader.

But I'm impressed that you seem to know quite a bit about English politics.

Donkey

Aug 18th 2011, 09:51 AM

There is no longer any New Labour.

Ed Milliband is the Trade Unions' choice as leader.

But I'm impressed that you seem to know quite a bit about English politics.

I don't know that much about Miliband. His political views (according to Wiki) seem pretty intriguing. I used to know a lot more about this sort of thing. During school I made it a point to know as much as I could about other country's politics. I'm less up to date these days I'm afraid.

Americano

Aug 18th 2011, 09:54 AM

Donkey, had it been an isolated incident, it would of course have been too harsh a sentence.

But in this case certain things have to be taken into consideration:

-mass lootings make it easier for the criminals to get away with what they are doing. This looters presence made it easier for more serious criminals to do the bad things that they did.

-the riots had terrible consequences, and all the rioters must take some responsibility.

Britain has to defend itself, and 6 months in prison for a looting-participant is a humanitarian way of doing so.

I've been looking at forums with higher UK membership participation and the consensus seems to be current riots being perpetrated by the same petty/not so petty criminals and (not my words) ne'er-do-wells that are a component of any metropolitan area in the world. For whatever reason, the dregs of society who have existed....forever.

The_Dot

Aug 18th 2011, 10:23 AM

And when the dreadful chewing-gum marauder gets out of prison in six months? What kind of opportunities await?

The same opportunity what awaited before he looted: the opportunity to choose not to be a criminal.

He made a choice, and that choice has a consequence. He could easily have chosen not to loot.

There's nothing noble to attach to this guy's actions.

Donkey

Aug 18th 2011, 10:28 AM

The same opportunity what awaited before he looted: the opportunity to choose not to be a criminal.

He made a choice, and that choice has a consequence. He could easily have chosen not to loot.

There's nothing noble to attach to this guy's actions.

Please stop ascribing arguments to me that I am not making.

IF the circumstances are the same for all these "criminals," when they get out of prison (and all their non-incarcerated cohorts), the cycle will repeat, and repeat, and repeat.

No amount of fascist tactics will stop it either. You can't solve a social problem with security solutions.

NickKIELCEPoland

Aug 18th 2011, 11:20 AM

Miliband is a great leader. I only hope he remains it, and isn't corrupted by the proximity of 10 Downing Street. Please, Mr. Miliband, never speak to the Murdoch family.

The_Dot

Aug 18th 2011, 11:22 AM

Please stop ascribing arguments to me that I am not making.

IF the circumstances are the same for all these "criminals," when they get out of prison (and all their non-incarcerated cohorts), the cycle will repeat, and repeat, and repeat.

No amount of fascist tactics will stop it either. You can't solve a social problem with security solutions.

What argument are you imagining I am ascribing to you?

Donkey

Aug 18th 2011, 11:42 AM

What argument are you imagining I am ascribing to you?

I could be off the mark here, but I feel like you are implying that I am assigning some "nobility" to smashing windows and stealing iPods.

Michael

Aug 18th 2011, 06:36 PM

I've been looking at forums with higher UK membership participation and the consensus seems to be current riots being perpetrated by the same petty/not so petty criminals and (not my words) ne'er-do-wells that are a component of any metropolitan area in the world. For whatever reason, the dregs of society who have existed....forever.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree - but the key issue is the relative proportion of them in the population. Every nation has an underclass. But Britain has a very large one and its been growing for almost a century now - and apparently the growth rate is speeding up now.

USA (and France and Germany for example) all have underclasses that are growing just as fast. Britain had a big head-start and is way ahead. This is the future as 'capitalism' reaches its terminal end-state with rates of return in the developed world approaching relative zero (after accounting for inflation and cost of capital). Proles will become 'lumpenproles' and that's very dangerous for society.

For anyone paying attention, this is what Marx's theory ultimately predicted. Marx got ahead of himself in believing that state was immanent in the 19th century - Marx himself was wrong, but Marx's theory (that Marx seems to have ignored) appears to be quite explicable and explanatory.

Americano

Aug 18th 2011, 08:54 PM

Yes, I'm inclined to agree - but the key issue is the relative proportion of them in the population. Every nation has an underclass. But Britain has a very large one and its been growing for almost a century now - and apparently the growth rate is speeding up now.

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to compound the social impact of expanding state provided shelter, food, health care, transportation and entertainment in the citizenry. The ne'er-do-wells (great phrase, thanks England) will by human nature always demand more than can be realistically provided. Or take it.

USA (and France and Germany for example) all have underclasses that are growing just as fast. Britain had a big head-start and is way ahead. This is the future as 'capitalism' reaches its terminal end-state with rates of return in the developed world approaching relative zero (after accounting for inflation and cost of capital). Proles will become 'lumpenproles' and that's very dangerous for society.

I was formerly interested in futuristic theory based on linear economic extrapolation and it didn't paint a pretty picture for life on this planet, particularly in democratically structured and developed societies with economically dependent underclasses. Much of the base data focused on resource consumption and technology efficiency eliminating demand for mundane skill sets. If he decided to do so, Andrew could likely provide current environmental statistics that should scare the living shit out of younger posters who would bother to listen. Most won't as emotionally perceived or denied opportunity, empathy and pompousness blind them to reality.

For anyone paying attention, this is what Marx's theory ultimately predicted. Marx got ahead of himself in believing that state was immanent in the 19th century - Marx himself was wrong, but Marx's theory (that Marx seems to have ignored) appears to be quite explicable and explanatory.

drgoodtrips

Aug 19th 2011, 11:53 AM

Yes, I'm inclined to agree - but the key issue is the relative proportion of them in the population. Every nation has an underclass. But Britain has a very large one and its been growing for almost a century now - and apparently the growth rate is speeding up now.

USA (and France and Germany for example) all have underclasses that are growing just as fast. Britain had a big head-start and is way ahead. This is the future as 'capitalism' reaches its terminal end-state with rates of return in the developed world approaching relative zero (after accounting for inflation and cost of capital). Proles will become 'lumpenproles' and that's very dangerous for society.

For anyone paying attention, this is what Marx's theory ultimately predicted. Marx got ahead of himself in believing that state was immanent in the 19th century - Marx himself was wrong, but Marx's theory (that Marx seems to have ignored) appears to be quite explicable and explanatory.

Isn't that kind of a double edged sword for society, from a purely realpolitik perspective of those invested in society? Lumenproles (unless I'm misremembering the definition of this term) will cause localized mayhem but pose no actual threat to the social order of the day as they won't organize or do anything longer term about their situation. The lumenproles are dangerous to proles rather than to the movers and shakers, who live in gated communities and frequent areas that are unlikely to be populated by lumenproles doing whatever it is that they do. The only danger to them that I see is the proles getting fed up enough with rampant behavior of the criminal class to organize some sort of revolution.

I think this is further complicated by the fact that the "pro government conservative", law and order types on the right tend to monopolize air time on this issue. That is, nobody brays more about breaking the backs of the lumenproles than the Rush Limbaughs of the world, who advocate economic (and social, like anti-abortion) policies that tend to create them in the first place.

nanacat

Aug 19th 2011, 04:17 PM

And I'm sorry, but explaining it by saying that thousands of kids rioted because their parents didn't beat them enough is fucking ludicrous.

Maybe they should have beat more black people to keep those riots in the '60s from happening. :ummm:

I agree. Humiliation and physical violence destroy a young soul. As D mentioned, the parent who has to resort to this, is a lazy, angry, bad parent--no doubt mistreated himself as a child.

The_Dot

Aug 19th 2011, 06:37 PM

Here are some folks who should be beaten as adults / adolescents:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/news/3755339/Scooter-hijacked-during-riot.html

I think caning would be a fit punishment for these animals.

Americano

Aug 19th 2011, 08:46 PM

I agree. Humiliation and physical violence destroy a young soul. As D mentioned, the parent who has to resort to this, is a lazy, angry, bad parent--no doubt mistreated himself as a child.

I know a lot of people who were raised with spanking as a method of enforcing childhood discipline that matured into fine contributing members of society. In most cases it only took one spanking in the formative years and the stated future consequence of not respecting parental rules.

Children are going to test their wings and there are some who respect no conventional boundaries. That's how child psychology became such a lucrative profession. When a child can have a parent jailed for using physical force such as a slap on the ass for discipline, where else do parents without an advanced degree in psychology with constantly rebellious children turn? To those who can write the prescriptions/calm the parents. Contemporary social engineering of one size fits all covered in most group insurance benefits. Pass the buck.

Michael

Aug 20th 2011, 10:20 AM

Isn't that kind of a double edged sword for society, from a purely realpolitik perspective of those invested in society? Lumenproles (unless I'm misremembering the definition of this term) will cause localized mayhem but pose no actual threat to the social order of the day as they won't organize or do anything longer term about their situation. The lumenproles are dangerous to proles rather than to the movers and shakers, who live in gated communities and frequent areas that are unlikely to be populated by lumenproles doing whatever it is that they do. The only danger to them that I see is the proles getting fed up enough with rampant behavior of the criminal class to organize some sort of revolution.

I think this is further complicated by the fact that the "pro government conservative", law and order types on the right tend to monopolize air time on this issue. That is, nobody brays more about breaking the backs of the lumenproles than the Rush Limbaughs of the world, who advocate economic (and social, like anti-abortion) policies that tend to create them in the first place.

That's precisely why they are so dangerous. I have no delusions that rising masses of lumpenproles means anything other than trouble for everyone. They are not productive - they are destructive. And their fellow proles are most certainly to be the ones to suffer the most from the antics of lumpenproles.

That's why public policies that cause and perpetuate a rising underclass are really bad news.

NickKIELCEPoland

Sep 2nd 2011, 03:26 PM

BBC Radio 4 claims that the Canadians are telling their own politicians that they should be more like David Cameron, and bring the Vancouver rioters to justice?

What do people think?

MeMyselfAndI

Sep 2nd 2011, 03:39 PM

Corporal punishment returns to British Schools

In response to the recent riots British schools have allowed for the return of corporal punishment. The use of force and other harsh penalties is now allowed by the British government.

Such punishments, according to Education Minister Michael Gove will help "restore the authority of adults," after the riots in London.
The Minister also said that he would like to attract more men to work in schools as teachers, especially in the elementary grades so that they could demonstrate strength.
This fall the government plans to begin a program to attract former military officers to schools.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55534909.html

Well, who was right? :lol:

The Drunk Guy

Sep 2nd 2011, 03:44 PM

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55534909.html

Well, who was right? :lol:

Prediction: 2020, violent crimes will be double the 2010 levels in GB.

Donkey

Sep 2nd 2011, 03:47 PM

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55534909.html

Well, who was right? :lol:

Fascism can only be gentle for so long.

dilettante

Sep 2nd 2011, 03:47 PM

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55534909.html

Well, who was right? :lol:

I can't find any details or support for the claims in that article.

NickKIELCEPoland

Sep 2nd 2011, 03:49 PM

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55534909.html

Well, who was right? :lol:
I don't know? Who was?

MeMyselfAndI

Sep 2nd 2011, 04:01 PM

I don't know? Who was?

Me.

This article really explains much.
http://kp.ru/daily/25736/2725798/
I am too tired to translate all of it, but I'll give you the main points.

The main problem is with the British parenting and educational system: it is too meek and liberal. Children can actually sue their parents, or at least threaten to, they can complain to the authorities against them. All this creates an environment where parents and teachers are unable to discipline the young.

Children in the West have "rights"... This is a complete shock to me, and to most people here in Russia, we read this article. Children here are brought up with "responcibilities", not rights, and parents have the full power to raise their children as they see fit, and if that includes the leather belt, so be it. With boys particularly. Girls don't get whipped so much, because, well, they are girls. They are delicate. One should not hit them. They are future mothers and all that. But with boys, it is fine
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9100/porka.jpg
:lol:

I am not saying physical punishment is always the right answer. I personally cannot yet tell you if I will punish my own son that way when he is old enough. Maybe.

But the Cossacks, for example, who are considred the most disciplined and orderly society in our country, who live by a military-style subordination system use whipping with their traditional nagaika
http://www.origi.ru/file/101.jpg
as their favorite method of punishment. A krug (Cossack tribal court) can and does sentence both children and adults to whipping with a nagaika. For a man caught drinking or in posession of alcohol, in many Cossack communities it is 30 strikes with a nagaika. It is very effective, at least so say statistics: Cossack youth are the least criminal in our country; and they have perhaps lowest levels of alcoholism.
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/183533_10150152390096558_721246557_8515857_6504920 _n.jpghttp://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/150801_10150097295201558_721246557_7708743_1608337 _n.jpg
When one compares this to Moscow youth
http://moltat.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/p6112797.jpgOne quickly understands why Cossacks look down upon people from Moscow.

And traditional Old Orthodox families are the same way, children are kept in line, strictly. We are not ultra-militarists, like the Cossacks, we don't wear uniforms all day, and children do not have to address their parents by their rank. But our children are expected to contrivute to all labor in the household, help their parents.
http://www.centerasia.ru/uploads/posts/2008-06/1213978253_5.jpg
Laziness is absolutely and severely punished. I was whipped many times in my childhood, by my father, and grandfather also, with belts, with a stick once. I like to think it made me a better person now.

I think that's the recipe for Britain: start disciplining your young.

:D

NickKIELCEPoland

Sep 2nd 2011, 04:03 PM

MeMyselfandI,
Just 2 small points:

1. You didn't say the British government would introduce it - you said you supported it. Just because the British government introduces something, doesn't mean it's correct.

2. The article is bullshit and no one in the British government is even THINKING about it.

MeMyselfAndI

Sep 2nd 2011, 04:04 PM

I can't find any details or support for the claims in that article.

http://onlinelunchpail.blogspot.com/2011/09/child-abuse-returns-to-british-schools.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/01/michael-gove-physical-force-schools

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10228732-tough-teachers-to-use-physical-force-against-british-school-children

NickKIELCEPoland

Sep 2nd 2011, 04:10 PM

MeMyselfandI,
I can assure you that the Russian nesspaper you have read has totally misunderstood.

The government were planning on insisting that when physical force was used to prevent violent behaviour (for example, holding on to a boy who was about to attack another boy) it would have to be recorded.

They have now scrapped that idea.

But come on, you didn't really think Britain was going to introduce corporal punishment did you???

Michael

Sep 2nd 2011, 07:27 PM

I think that's the recipe for Britain: start disciplining your young.

What? So you want Britain to be as brutally violent as Russia? How is that an improvement?

Suffice it to say that beating children just makes for a violent society of adults.

MeMyselfAndI

Sep 2nd 2011, 10:07 PM

What? So you want Britain to be as brutally violent as Russia? How is that an improvement?

Suffice it to say that beating children just makes for a violent society of adults.

I have done much thinking about this, actually.

I do see your (and others here) point. Russian society is very violent at times and places.

I believe I now understand why.

You see, children here, particularly boys, learn to be aggressive starting in kindergarten
http://abatsk.ru/uploads/posts/2011-08/1313595025_0.jpg
In fact, there was a poll of kindergarden nannies all over the country, and majority of them said when they see a boy physically challenging and harrassing another boy, they urge that other boy to, also physically 'stand up for himself', to 'be a man'. On, the other hand, to be fair, boys who pick on girls are shamed and punished. But, yes, nannies essentially encourage boys to fight.

Then, later, when they go to school, they learn more violence, real violence
http://sfw.org.ua/uploads/posts/2008-11/1226230464_b_3307-medium-small.jpg
They join gangs; or football hooligans groups, which is most popular destination now, for young boys, like once the skinhead gangs were. Life of a fanat is a life filled with fighting and violence
http://i12.fastpic.ru/big/2010/1115/f4/2549d786464d40d781598306a6b573f4.jpg
http://prikolitut.ru/_pu/4/66760726.jpg

And of course, Russian culture itself encourages violence among the young. Favorite Orthodox Christian tradition during our Easter?

Wall on wall fist fighting
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-COUWvxOU0Zc/S4PwmZbsw_I/AAAAAAAAAPg/tPzIBAZUrEs/s1600/%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B7%25D0%25B3%25D0%25BE%25D1%2582 %25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0.jpghttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jQmDoS0o1dk/S4Pxv3BOsrI/AAAAAAAAAPg/o3zOpU_LNyw/s1600/%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BA %25D0%25B0+1.jpghttps://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-b6pc2esGpW0/S49nXfjPt4I/AAAAAAAAAPg/sieOu3WkTfI/s1600/S0242947.JPG
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-b6pc2esGpW0/S49nXfjPt4I/AAAAAAAAAPg/sieOu3WkTfI/s1600/S0242947.JPG
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-GQJLYmd-cWk/S4Px6HOG_2I/AAAAAAAAAPg/OJiClci7JH4/s1600/%25D0%25A1%25D1%2582%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BA %25D0%25B0+%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B D%25D1%2587%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B 5.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-uWmN8q9l_jc/S4PzImomL2I/AAAAAAAAAPg/rFPP1aoFEEk/s1600/%25D0%25A2%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B9%25D1%2586%25D1%258B +%25D0%25B8+%25D0%25B1%25D1%2583%25D0%25B4%25D0%25 B4%25D0%25B8%25D1%2581%25D1%2582.jpg
in the middle of the whole melee you can see a boy, maybe 10 years old. He is having fun :)

Children growing up in poor families in Siberia know how to hunt and kill since very early age, boys learn from their fathers
http://photopolygon.com/photo/fit/464/18275/110585.jpg.700

With all this, it is no wonder police and OMON do regular large scale training excercizes before major sport, especially soccer/football, events and prepare for anything
http://www.guvdso.ru/imagee/uchi.bmp
http://www.guvdso.ru/imagee/uchii.bmp
http://www.guvdso.ru/imagee/uchiii.bmp
Those are the men who know the sort of society we here live in, they are ones who go face to face with it every day...

Michael

Sep 3rd 2011, 10:23 AM

I have done much thinking about this, actually.

I do see your (and others here) point. Russian society is very violent at times and places.

I believe I now understand why.

You see, children here, particularly boys, learn to be aggressive starting in kindergarten

It starts long before that. Mothers and fathers often teach their young sons to be aggressive - and using physical punishment just reinforces this. The idea that is taught is that 'violence' is a useful and necessary thing that is used to achieve good behavior. This lesson gets internalized - and you end up with a society where violence is celebrated as a way of life and violent behavior gets justified. That just leads to more and endless violence.

NickKIELCEPoland

Oct 30th 2011, 03:30 PM

This guy was so poor and downtrodden that he took to the streets in righteous protest:

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2011/8/9/bca037fb-40e3-4ca9-bc7b-1442c5ae12b6_thumb.jpeg

Well, not really - he is just a thieving piece of shit who took the opportunity to be a thieving piece of shit (and then cleverly posted his face with his stolen goods on his YouTube page).

So, please enlighten us - why did this happen?

This is an old post, but it deserves a cap-doffing, in my humble opinion.

NickKIELCEPoland

Apr 12th 2012, 03:03 AM

Children in the West have "rights"... This is a complete shock to me, and to most people here in Russia, we read this article. Children here are brought up with "responcibilities", not rights, and parents have the full power to raise their children as they see fit, and if that includes the leather belt, so be it. With boys particularly. Girls don't get whipped so much, because, well, they are girls. They are delicate. One should not hit them. They are future mothers and all that. But with boys, it is fine
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9100/porka.jpg
:lol:

.
I'm not going to discuss beating children.
But I am going to discuss TELLING children OFF!
How do Russians tell their children off when their children spit at people in the streets?