peterms Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 has warned that rioting could erupt on the streets because of the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots". He said that before the riots. It hardly takes a genius to predict that, though. 62% of arrests made were for Burglary ..would suggest that the rioting was just sheer opportunism by a load of toe rags rather than have's v have nots ? The riots were no doubt opportunism, unplanned, spontaneous. The point is that increasing inequality creates a sense of unfairness and anger, which is likely to create more of a propensity to riot when an opportunity presents itself. It doesn't guarantee riots, but it does make them more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 has warned that rioting could erupt on the streets because of the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots". He said that before the riots. It hardly takes a genius to predict that, though. 62% of arrests made were for Burglary ..would suggest that the rioting was just sheer opportunism by a load of toe rags rather than have's v have nots ? The riots were no doubt opportunism, unplanned, spontaneous. The point is that increasing inequality creates a sense of unfairness and anger, which is likely to create more of a propensity to riot when an opportunity presents itself. It doesn't guarantee riots, but it does make them more likely. I think a misplaced sense of entitlement without the expectation that you must earn those new trainers or xbox is more to blame. Instant reward without the work. It can't just be due to haves vs have nots as the US would be rioting all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The point is that increasing inequality creates a sense of unfairness and anger, which is likely to create more of a propensity to riot when an opportunity presents itself. It doesn't guarantee riots, but it does make them more likely. an article I read yesterday said a lot of the rioters were middle class and joined in because of a felling of "why should somebody else be getting something for free " and the injustice of it all !! that has to be one of the most bonkers excuses I've ever heard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I think a misplaced sense of entitlement without the expectation that you must earn those new trainers or xbox is more to blame. Instant reward without the work. It can't just be due to haves vs have nots as the US would be rioting all the time. We have spent decades inculcating in people's minds the idea that you should get what you want now, rather than save up for it. That has become the main driver of the economy. It is this normalisation of the idea of debt which has allowed private debt to increase to truly scary levels, and which has also allowed businesses to sell more goods and services than people have the means to buy. In doing so, we have also employed the insights of psychologists to persuade people to want more, and to change their consumption behaviour, using techniques which most people aren't aware of and don't understand. Vance Packard wrote about this half a century ago. It's been quite successful, if "success" means persuading everyone that debt is normal, that they should consume beyond their means, and that they must continue to dispose of perfectly adequate goods in order to buy a marginally different version. But it's not sustainable. Not in environmental terms, and not in social or economic terms either, as we are now seeing. "Entitlement" makes it sound like some kind of moral failing on the part of those who want those new trainers, that new phone. I see it rather as them having been successfully trained in aspirational consumerism, and the notion that debt is ok. Having trained them so insidiously, so comprehensively, that their value and self-worth depends on what brand of trainers they wear or which designers' or shitty sports clothes manufacturers' logos they parade about their person, but then denied them the means to satisfy these desires legitimately, we can expect a little leakage into criminality. As for the US, they seem to be expecting a little local difficulty. 375,000 National Guardsmen and 14,000 Army Reservists had been trained in riot control as the year closed. The Army National Guard conducted, at the expense of regular training, sixteen hours of refresher civil disturbance training. Some states also carried out civil disturbance command post exercises in conjunction with local and state civil authorities. The Army Reserve had three infantry brigades which were part of the federal military contingency force for the control of civil disturbances. These units also conducted sixteen hours of refresher civil disturbance training at the expense of primary training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Having trained them so insidiously, so comprehensively, that their value and self-worth depends on what brand of trainers they wear or which designers' or shitty sports clothes manufacturers' logos they parade about their person, but then denied them the means to satisfy these desires legitimately, we can expect a little leakage into criminality. Can’t people take any control over their actions? Over their desires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Having trained them so insidiously, so comprehensively, that their value and self-worth depends on what brand of trainers they wear or which designers' or shitty sports clothes manufacturers' logos they parade about their person, but then denied them the means to satisfy these desires legitimately, we can expect a little leakage into criminality. Can’t people take any control over their actions? Over their desires? Yes they can, or else the world would be a pretty scary place. But people vary in the extent to which they can control them, as I'm sure everyone would accept. Of course it's not just people who can't afford the things they have been taught to want, who slip into illegality to satisfy their wants. A recent study suggests that The pursuit of self-interest is a “fundamental motive among society’s elite, and the increased want associated with greater wealth and status can promote wrongdoing,” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The pursuit of self-interest is a “fundamental motive among society’s elite” I would say self interest is the main driving force behind most people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 "Entitlement" makes it sound like some kind of moral failing on the part of those who want those new trainers, that new phone. Well it is a moral failing on the part of those who want new trainers and will steal them instead of working. Of course it is. Most people understand the need to earn something but a small minority slipped up that weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Well it is a moral failing on the part of those who want new trainers and will steal them instead of working. Of course it is. Most people understand the need to earn something but a small minority slipped up that weekend. Do you heap this same opprobrium upon those at the other end of the spectrum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Do you heap this same opprobrium upon those at the other end of the spectrum? Do you accept that the vast majority of the rioters were actually opportunist robbing bastards, not moral crusaders against the injustice of society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Well it is a moral failing on the part of those who want new trainers and will steal them instead of working. Of course it is. Most people understand the need to earn something but a small minority slipped up that weekend. Do you heap this same opprobrium upon those at the other end of the spectrum? Why does there always need to be this "whataboutery" whenever this is discussed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Do you accept that the vast majority of the rioters were actually opportunist robbing bastards, not moral crusaders against the injustice of society? I don't think I've claimed that the vast majority of rioters/looters were 'moral crusaders against the injustice of society', have I? To view what happened in simplistic terms (e.g. that all the people were rising up anf fighting injustice or that they were all just robbing bastards and so on) would appear to me to be a mistake. Things are more complicated than that. It would appear more sensible to discuss things which may have contributed to conditions that can make that kind of thing more likely to happen; specific things which may have been catalysts; errors in actions to counter events; whether some people may have been angry; whether some may have been opportunist thieves; whether some may have gone along for the craic; whether some may have been determined arsonists or nasty violent thugs and on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Why does there always need to be this "whataboutery" whenever this is discussed? I'll take that as avoiding the question. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It would appear more sensible to discuss things which may have contributed to conditions that can make that kind of thing more likely to happen; specific things which may have been catalysts; errors in actions to counter events; whether some people may have been angry; whether some may have been opportunist thieves; whether some may have gone along for the craic; whether some may have been determined arsonists or nasty violent thugs and on and on. Why? What matters is that whatever their motivation (none of which could be considered virtuous) the rioters assaulted and robbed people, destroyed businesses and destroyed property in the pursuit of personal gain. Hand wringing discussions centred on why the poor dears did what they did avoids confronting the glaring truth: all of them decided to break the law, take what wasn't theirs and cause massive damage to the lives of innocent people in the process. They are scum, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Why? Because trying to understand the world around us would appear to me to be a sensible way to go about things. Hand wringing discussions centred on why the poor dears did what they did... The pejorative comments and incorrect caricaturing of people's comments and positions are unhelpful and unnecessary. Edited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 It would appear more sensible to discuss things which may have contributed to conditions that can make that kind of thing more likely to happen; specific things which may have been catalysts; errors in actions to counter events; whether some people may have been angry; whether some may have been opportunist thieves; whether some may have gone along for the craic; whether some may have been determined arsonists or nasty violent thugs and on and on. Why? What matters is that whatever their motivation (none of which could be considered virtuous) the rioters assaulted and robbed people, destroyed businesses and destroyed property in the pursuit of personal gain. Hand wringing discussions centred on why the poor dears did what they did avoids confronting the glaring truth: all of them decided to break the law, take what wasn't theirs and cause massive damage to the lives of innocent people in the process. They are scum, plain and simple. Well for a start, the number who caused "massive damage to the lives of innocent people" is pretty tiny. One feature of the riots is that the sentencing seemed to punish all involved as thought they were accomplices of the worst cases. Man burns down store in Croydon, real risk of death; man picking up bottle of water off the street in Brixton is imprisoned. Wholly disproportionate, unfair, and pretty undermining of confidence in the legal system. Second, most rioters did not assault and rob people, as you will know if you have followed this at any more than the most superficial level. Third, if we are going to be going after people who take what isn't theirs and cause "massive damage to the lives of innocent people", then the City of London would be a good place to start, and I don't mean the Occupy people. Fourth, Snowy's post usefully mentions crowd behaviour and how people get caught up in it, which I am sure anyone on this forum will need little instruction in. It's how people behave, the world over, and across milennia. It would be really nice if those who do could rise above it and be like the Dalai Lama or Bertrand Russell instead, but sadly that just isn't going to happen. If we are to understand and deal with the riots, and reduce the chance of future events, we will need to understand this, rather than stand by with a puzzled look and shouts of "lock them up!"as entirely predictable behaviours repeat themselves. Fifth, trying to understand why the poor dears did this, and will do again, may be tiresome for those who would rather whip them to the next parish, but unless you have a more practical idea than imprisoning/shooting/deporting everyone who transgresses against property laws, then a bit of an attempt at understanding would indeed be a good thing to try to achieve. Characterising it as "handwringing", as though trying to understand why the riots happened is equivalent to pathetic vacillating indecision or terminal faith in the good motives of the most obvious crook is laughably obtuse, and I can only surmise you don't really mean it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 It would be really nice if those who do could rise above it and be like the Dalai Lama I'm guessing by which you don't mean the Chinese view that he is a separatist and traitor ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 British builders enjoyed their best month for almost a year during February, giving a fresh boost to the UK economy. The closely-watched Markit/CIPS construction index – where anything over 50 represents growth – jumped to 54.3 in February, up from 51.4 in January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 It would be really nice if those who do could rise above it and be like the Dalai Lama I'm guessing by which you don't mean the Chinese view that he is a separatist and traitor ? He may well be a separatist and traitor, in which case he must be executed. I was simply referring to his reputation for having some capacity for self-reflection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Interest rates on mortgages about to rise. Good to see condemnation from their friends in Downing Street ........ oh there wasn't any Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts