Riots Are For Losers

  • Posted on: 28 April 2015
  • By: davis

I don't care about your politics with regards to the Baltimore riots. I don't care why you're angry. I hope you succeed in getting what you want, to be honest, whatever that is.

But I know something about your movement - it will fail, this time.

Because it's called a "riot." You've already lost.

Winners wage wars, battles, skirmishes. Losers riot.

Do you know what the true difference is? Guns, media, control. Winners have guns, media, and control. Losers riot because they can't do anything else. The powerful can sit back and laugh - deploy some militarized police force here and there, haha, these dumbass protestors, they don't even have a contact with Boeing.

Losers riot because that's all they can do. If your movement has been called a riot, it has already lost. That doesn't mean your cause is not just, right, or valid.

It means that you don't have enough power to say otherwise. If you did, it would be called a war, because there would be two powerful entities against another.

Instead, it's a riot, and you've already lost. Riots are suppressed. Wars are fought. Do you understand? You don't have the option of winning.

Isn't it interesting that violence against the state from its citizens is condemned, and its loudest participants are angrily shouted at.

Yet when a systematic military force from the state is applied overseas, this is sensible destruction in the pursuit of the greater good. Isn't it interesting how war, the most violent riot of all, is covered calmly and with the coercion of the media? Imagine if CNN, instead of filming tear canisters dispersing among crowds throwing bricks, had instead gone to “General Al Sharpton, reporting from 15 miles behind the front lines.” A crowded lectern with serious advisers in uniform, gravely reporting strategic objectives.

What if Fox & Friends had lively discussions over “progress” made by “our brave troops over there.” What if images of the trashing and the looting and the burning were censored for the protection of the psyche of the American public?

Interesting, isn't it? The government, historically and currently, has had few qualms about shutting down journalists when they threaten to show “too much” violence. Wars are ugly – sterile maps with arrows drawn on them are much better than images of mangled, slaughtered civilians. But how do you think those arrows happen?

We allow the media and government to focus on the excesses of the protestors to our disservice. Of course, I'm not a big fan of people getting nasty with each other in general. But, seriously, why do you watch a riot and think “That's disgusting” and then sorta hand-wave the whole Iraq war thing as whatever?

I was watching CNN yesterday and the brain-dead journalists kept reporting “THE POLICE CLEARLY NEED HELP, THEY NEED BACKUP, THEY ARE GETTING INJURED.” Okay, and?

And?

That's not how you cover a battle between Americans. That's how you cover a one-sided military campaign. If you are an actual journalist, the police do not “need” anything, from your perspective anyways. They simply “are.” They are getting injured. They are requesting help. They do not need your help.

You know who might be interested in your services? All of the people protesting. All of those people who apparently felt so powerless they resorted to mass protests (NB: THEY DON'T FEEL THEY HAVE A VOICE, AND YOU'RE PROVING THEM RIGHT). But you're going to show the ones smashing windows because we're allowed to watch that and say “ugh, disgusting.”

Our country launched something called “Shock and Awe” against another country. We bomb shit like it's our job. Matter of fact, it sorta is our job, but that's moving into the whole military industrial thing. Not enough time for that.

And we're all tripped up over some trash cans getting thrown around?

I forgot there's only one side to this battle. Hey you, get back in your city. Why are you burning what we gave you? You're lucky to have a CVS, you ingrates. Can you please mean-mug for this camera so we can put it on the 6 o'clock news? We need stories and you're black enough to make our viewers mad.

The biggest mistake the Baltimore protestors made: Not enough guns. I don't mean that in a “please start shooting people” way (please don't shoot people), just a fact of life. If you have more guns than everyone else, the violence you visit upon them is excusable and rational. If you are a poor person with no options other than smashing meaningless windows, you are a virus that needs to be suppressed.

Thus, war vs. riots. One has industry, money, connections, media, and lots of guns. The other has people smashing windows because that's all they can do.

What if we covered wars like riots? What if instead of cutting to Pentagon briefings, reporters stayed in the streets and villages, showing the graphic aftermath of drones, bombs, special forces teams, etc.? Wouldn't that be something?

What if our 6 o'clock news was filled with grainy FLIR-equipped Apaches mutilating enemy combatants from the air? What if even a fraction of the 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths were shown, unedited and uncut?

What if the carefully coiffed news anchors tsk-tsk'd the military - “Well, Susan, I just don't understand. We're supposed to be helping Iraqi's, and all we're really doing is smashing their country to pieces. Isn't this senseless? Didn't we learn from MLK that peaceful protests are the only way of conducting negotiations?”

What if rapes, murders, theft (all horrific problems in the military by the way. If you're a women, you have a 1 in 3 chance of being sexually assaulted in the military) were heavily reported by the media, not brushed to the side as an inconvenience?

What if we focused on rising rates of sexual assault and the fact that our military veterans keep killing themselves? What about the enormous moral ramifications of unleashing unmanned technology to assassinate combatants across the globe?

But whoa – dude – did you see that guy smash a car window? What a fucking punk.