Riot Following Laker Win

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The reason Signore Maddox was headed in the right direction is liberalism does indeed create the entitlement mentality because liberalism creates the entitlements.

Entitlements create poverty.

Poverty creates “who gives a shit.”

“Who gives a shit” creates the atmosphere for riots.

The atmosphere for riots combined with any ol’ reason creates…riots.

Now Dumb Bell Cooper, you are dismissed.[/quote]

So if the Dutch win the World Cup… will Amsterdam still be there the next day? Because they’ve had a large entitlement system for long enough for the rest of your secondary effects to play through.[/quote]

Shucks, Otep the Mighty, I don’t know nuthin bout Masterdam, I’m am Murrican.

Can you possibly tell us why LA or Detroit can and do riot and Dallas and Portland don’t?[/quote]

I reckon its cuz’n them thar eyeligull immuhgrants.

From a psychological point of view, something has to give license, and it could be these places have a history of rioting, which in turn gives license to the behavior, since it’s rarely fully put down (bad press), like BPTiger above mentioned. I think it has more to do along that vein than welfare state benefits, because while Europe has its riots, it correlates poorly with government intrusion into the market.

But it also correlates poorly with poverty: You never hear of riots in Apalachia, or N or S Dakota. Perhaps because the only thing they could destroy would be the family’s last good pair of shoes. And even then, you can still boil the leather for taste.

It also coorlates poorly with race: political protests turn into riots the world over, and while the green revolution in Iran and the protests against Zelaya in Honduras and the red-shirts in Thailand have more credence for rioting than the people in LA… it’s the same phenomenon.

So… no, I can’t tell you.

Though maybe it’s because the Trailblazers and the Mavericks suck.[/quote]

Lost count of the straw men in that post. Could make an army of scarecrows.

43

There is probably a riot somewhere in Ohio every weekend.

44

There is something to the idea of poverty = riots, in that those who do have access (for whatever reason) to employment that keeps them busy making a livable wage tend to be more disenfranchised and have time on their hands. This is one reason gov’ts worry so much about employment. It is not just lack of productivity, it is large population of unemployed and underemployed people, men especially, tend to lead to social and political unrest.

This is true regardless of political and economic system the population lives under. And here’s the kicker, entitlement programs are in place to help subdue the unrest. Now whether the sense of entitlement, drawn from either gov’t programs or rich parents or just an attitude, leads to a greater willingness to riot is an interesting theory. But one can benefit from a gov’t entitlement without developing a sense of entitlement. Just as riots occur around the world in places where there is no gov’t entitlement programs.

45

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Entitlement Nanny State my friend. If I was in the car I would run the scum over.[/quote]

It has nothing to do with that. It’s fucked up excited people getting into a groupthink mentality and following the crowd in doing whatever they do. Then there’s some criminals who capitalize on that feeling and actually steal shit as well.

It would have happened whether the country was led by socialists or laissez-faire capitalists.

Nanny state entitlement…christ, you fucking people are ridiculous with this shit. [/quote]

If Billings, MT had an NBA team that won the Championship there absolutely, positively would not have been any riots.

If Dallas had won the Championship, no riots.

If Utah had won…, no riots.

If Portland had won…, no riots.

If Detroit had won…? Yeah, you guessed it…riots.[/quote]

Here’s some non-Nanny State rioting. Rioting occurs everywhere. If Montana State won the BCS Champsionship Game, their fans would probably go apeshit. To say that states with large social service programs are inherently prone to rioting is beyond ridiculous. Cities and states whose teams win big games are prone to rioting, regardless of where they are.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/136539/

http://www.clemsontalk.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-267.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/2002/bowls/news/2003/01/03/riots_postgame_ap/

There were also riots in Minnesota of the U of M won back-to-back NCAA Hockey Championships, in Edmonton after the Oilers won the Western Conference title, and in Denver after both of the Broncos Super Bowl wins.[/quote]

You are comparing a “pop gun” to a tank. What is beyond ridiculous is your refusal to acknowledge reality.

An altercation that would end in a fist fight in Nashville would more likely end with gun play in Oakland. But using your standard liberal thinking, they would be equivalent.

Good luck with that. You might have a future in politics. [/quote]

Yours and Push’s assumptions are leading you both down fallacious paths. Since Push is incapable of answering virtually any question I ever put forth to him in these threads, maybe you can answer a question for me. If there is a connection between liberalism, poverty and a “who gives a shit” attitude, and these factors can ultimately lead to riots according to Push (an assessment I assume you agree with to a large extent), then why have there never been any riots in San Francisco after the 49ers five Super Bowl victories? If any of the assertions made by Push about the cause of sporting-related riots is true, then massive rioting would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area after major sporting wins. With the exception of one riot in Oakland after the Raiders lost the Super Bowl, there has never been a sporting-related riot in the Bay Area. Why is this so?

46

There is a side to man which would like to watch the world burn. Higher civilization develops through generation upon generation of moral and legal tradition, layer upon layer. Yet, it takes a mere moment of time for man to cast it all away. One person throws a rock at a car. Then, another. Suddenly the cover of civilization is peeled away and–even if only briefly-- barely contained chaos threatens to pour out, spreading as if it was the most virulent infection man might ever know.

47

Someone might’ve yelled “INS!” Looks like it could’ve cleared at least 80-90% of the rioters…

48

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Entitlement Nanny State my friend. If I was in the car I would run the scum over.[/quote]

It has nothing to do with that. It’s fucked up excited people getting into a groupthink mentality and following the crowd in doing whatever they do. Then there’s some criminals who capitalize on that feeling and actually steal shit as well.

It would have happened whether the country was led by socialists or laissez-faire capitalists.

Nanny state entitlement…christ, you fucking people are ridiculous with this shit. [/quote]

If Billings, MT had an NBA team that won the Championship there absolutely, positively would not have been any riots.

If Dallas had won the Championship, no riots.

If Utah had won…, no riots.

If Portland had won…, no riots.

If Detroit had won…? Yeah, you guessed it…riots.[/quote]

Here’s some non-Nanny State rioting. Rioting occurs everywhere. If Montana State won the BCS Champsionship Game, their fans would probably go apeshit. To say that states with large social service programs are inherently prone to rioting is beyond ridiculous. Cities and states whose teams win big games are prone to rioting, regardless of where they are.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/136539/

http://www.clemsontalk.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-267.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/2002/bowls/news/2003/01/03/riots_postgame_ap/

There were also riots in Minnesota of the U of M won back-to-back NCAA Hockey Championships, in Edmonton after the Oilers won the Western Conference title, and in Denver after both of the Broncos Super Bowl wins.[/quote]

You are comparing a “pop gun” to a tank. What is beyond ridiculous is your refusal to acknowledge reality.

An altercation that would end in a fist fight in Nashville would more likely end with gun play in Oakland. But using your standard liberal thinking, they would be equivalent.

Good luck with that. You might have a future in politics. [/quote]

Yours and Push’s assumptions are leading you both down fallacious paths. Since Push is incapable of answering virtually any question I ever put forth to him in these threads, maybe you can answer a question for me. If there is a connection between liberalism, poverty and a “who gives a shit” attitude, and these factors can ultimately lead to riots according to Push (an assessment I assume you agree with to a large extent), then why have there never been any riots in San Francisco after the 49ers five Super Bowl victories? If any of the assertions made by Push about the cause of sporting-related riots is true, then massive rioting would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area after major sporting wins. With the exception of one riot in Oakland after the Raiders lost the Super Bowl, there has never been a sporting-related riot in the Bay Area. Why is this so?[/quote]

It has been a long day and I am pretty burnt, so this won’t be my best work. I’ll make a quick pass either way.

Maximus pointed out the event, to which dmaddox replied:
“Entitlement Nanny State my friend. If I was in the car I would run the scum over.” The point being the actions were the result, either direct or indirect, of the long term effects and unintended consequences that the actions of an Entitlement Nanny State have on the segment of the population it has magnanimously decided to “help”.

This prompted Irish to do his usual cowardly “drive by” after which he slunk away into the shadows.

dmaddox clarified with the following:
“Why does it seem to happen more in cities that are traditional entitlement cities than any where else? When you are handed something for free, money food stamps, and do not have to work for it, you are less likely to understand the meaning of ownership. The dude was sitting in his car and they busted his windshield? This stuff happens all the time in LA. New Orleans during Katrina. Lets go loot some shit because they have more than I do. Get off your rocker and start using your brain.”

The above seems to me to be a reasonable observation, question and statement. There would appear to be at least correlation if not proof of causality.

Push followed up with some presumptive statements that, if I were a betting man, I would not wager against.

You chose to challenge the presumption and took the time to post links to events that you thought negated the assumptions.

However, when I took the time to actually read and watch the examples that you chose to posts, it seemed to me you overplayed your hand. The examples given were nowhere on the scope or scale of the incident that inspired the thread. As a matter of fact, the only connection they had seemed to be the use of the word “riot” in the story. I responded with:

"You are comparing a “pop gun” to a tank. What is beyond ridiculous is your refusal to acknowledge reality.
An altercation that would end in a fist fight in Nashville would more likely end with gun play in Oakland. But using your standard liberal thinking, they would be equivalent.
Good luck with that. You might have a future in politics.

Push summed up his point (and presumably dmaddox’s) that liberalism creates entitlement mentality, which promotes poverty while at the same time avoiding the lessons of hard work and the meaning of joy of accomplishment and ownership. With little reason or life examples of buying into the system, working for what you get and striving to create a better life for you and your family, a “don’t give a shit” attitude forms. This creates an environment in which crime, theft, vandalism or out right riots can flourish.

This is where OTEP began building his army of straw men. I generally think OTEP is a smartass recent college grad with little real life experience, BUT he is very capable of explaining his position or making his case if he chooses. This time he just phoned it in.

Now to your challenge.

This is where I believe your disconnect is occurring. We are discussing liberalism, its creation of the entitlement mentality and its effect on the communities and peoples that liberals claim to be helping.

You are extrapolating that this would mean that areas which are densely populated with liberals should therefore be hotbeds of vandalism and riotous behavior.

This is where you are wrong. This is not what Push, dmaddox or I am saying. Liberals try very hard not to shit where they live (or live where they shit).

The areas in which the effects of liberalism and its accompanying attitude of entitlement, etc. are most often in the city or urban areas around which the liberals live, but not in the communities where they live. Liberals want to be able to think they are helping the little people. They just don’t want to live amongst them.

Though I have been to SF many times, I do not live there. My impression was and is that it is an ultra liberal, far left leaning city/community. It is not a city where ghettos and government housing occupy the trendy and expensive urban real estate.

It is an exception not because of the presence or absence of liberals, but because of the layout and distribution of those that their policies affect.

49

JEATON, I had a good laugh at the last few paragraphs of your last post.

Let’s see, poverty is the result of liberalism, eh? Liberals don’t live amongst the poor and less-affluent? I laugh. What counties surround SF? Marin, San Mateo, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. With the exception of Marin County, these counties are fairly diversified politically (roughly 55% to 45% Dem to Repub). They are also extremely affluent counties with high levels of education, high median household incomes and high median home prices. Also, extremely poor, crime-ridden areas like Richmond and East Palo Alto exist in these counties, but both of those cities have huge Democratic majorities, hence they are liberal areas as well. You claim that the areas surrounding the cities that liberals live in are affected adversely and that liberals don’t live where they shit. The Bay Area’s demographics overwhelmingly refute this erroneous assertion.

Things like poverty, rioting, mob mentality, and so on (and their origins) are far too complicated for you to wrap your head around so you just blame it on liberalism. What’s next, are you going to call me a liberal because I disagree with you and I grew up in the Bay Area? I’ve never voted Democrat and am a proud card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party. But if I disagree with you, I must be a liberal, just like if things go bad, it must be “the liberals” fault.

That’s all I ever see on these threads, from liberals and conservatives alike. The hardline liberals/conservatives here live in some fantasyland where all of the nation’s problems are the other’s fault. So rather than seriously evaluate these topics and risk realizing that maybe not everything is the fault of liberalism or conservatism, these hardliners simply blame everything on the other side and then bend their interpretation of events to fit this narrow view. When evidence to refute this narrow view is presented, the source is dismissed as being a “liberal” or “conservative”, regardless of the source’s veracity. Maybe some personal insults are thrown in along with a comment like “all liberals this” or “all conservatives that”. They want to believe whatever reinforces their narrow viewpoint. This is why conservatives overwhelmingly believe that global warming is a myth; it’s a “liberal” viewpoint that conservatives cannot be associated with. It’s also why many liberals believe that George Bush was somehow behind 9/11; it reinforces in their mind their belief that Bush was/is a tyrant who stole the 2000 election and then set into motion a huge conspiracy aimed at grabbing all the Middle East oil.

Take a look at the PWI Humor thread. It’s just a bunch of bullshit about communism and faked birth certificates and being “half-Muslim” that tells people what they want to believe. If I had a deep, deep hatred of liberals I’d probably believe all this shit people spew about Obama too, because it tells me what I want to hear. If I had an equally deep hatred for conservatives I’d probably believe that contrails from jets in the sky are really just big clouds of estrogen as part of Dick Cheney’s plan to turn us all into docile lemmings, ripe for plunder.

50

Re-read your last post. Re-read mine.

It does not appear as though we are discussing the same topic.

Oh, and you certainly out straw maned OTEP, or anyone else for that matter.

A few points to ponder:

Democrat and liberal are not synonyms. One is a political party and the other an ideology.

Though a certain population might identify or vote Democrat because of what they think they may get in return, this does not in itself make them liberal in their thinking.

You simply chose a side of a debate, and cited events as examples of proof to your point.

I examined your “proof” and found it lacking.

You then drifted off course, as we are all prone to do on this board, mixing the points of the effects of liberalism, the density of population areas thought of as “liberal” and eventually challenged me to give a reason why SF has not been the victim of riots after Super Bowl wins.

I do not know if you thought a possible exception to a perceived pattern would by itself invalidate an informal hypothesis or not. Kind of like the tugging of one thread could unravel the whole cloth.

Either way, I chose to ignore the non sequitur and accept your challenge of offering a possible answer as to why SF has not been a victim of riots.

You responded by taking the liberal “elitist” (and definitely not libertarian) tactic of simply declaring me too ignorant to wrap my head around all the many variables involved.

But I must thank you, for you too made me laugh by going on a rant about how others continually do the very thing you were attempting to do to me.

Pot, meet kettle.

Now get some sleep. You can do better than the above.

52

I would argue that Entitlement is more a result of stereotypes nurtured within a socio-economic class about another, “higher up” class, than being the result of government assistance programs creating a sense of entitlement.

Meaning, all you need is two, well-segregated socio-economic classes within a population, bring them together for a major event, let emotions run high (for whatever illogical reason), and watch people act on the stereotypes they were raised with.

Hell, I would even argue that there is a greater sense of entitlement (among lower economic classes) when there are little to NO assistance programs: the lower of two economic classes being pissed that it never receives anything from a government that governs both it and the higher class.

Economic disparity usually leads to segregation. Segregation can nurture stereotypes (assuming education and interaction mitigate if not eliminate stereotypes). Stereotypes and segregation, fueled by passion and hysteria, may lead to violence and looting.

53

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Re-read your last post. Re-read mine.

It does not appear as though we are discussing the same topic.

Oh, and you certainly out straw maned OTEP, or anyone else for that matter.

A few points to ponder:

Democrat and liberal are not synonyms. One is a political party and the other an ideology.

Though a certain population might identify or vote Democrat because of what they think they may get in return, this does not in itself make them liberal in their thinking.

You simply chose a side of a debate, and cited events as examples of proof to your point.

I examined your “proof” and found it lacking.

You then drifted off course, as we are all prone to do on this board, mixing the points of the effects of liberalism, the density of population areas thought of as “liberal” and eventually challenged me to give a reason why SF has not been the victim of riots after Super Bowl wins.

I do not know if you thought a possible exception to a perceived pattern would by itself invalidate an informal hypothesis or not. Kind of like the tugging of one thread could unravel the whole cloth.

Either way, I chose to ignore the non sequitur and accept your challenge of offering a possible answer as to why SF has not been a victim of riots.

You responded by taking the liberal “elitist” (and definitely not libertarian) tactic of simply declaring me too ignorant to wrap my head around all the many variables involved.

But I must thank you, for you too made me laugh by going on a rant about how others continually do the very thing you were attempting to do to me.

Pot, meet kettle.

Now get some sleep. You can do better than the above.
[/quote]

So now you’re an expert on the socio-economic factors in the Bay Area that make certain highly Democratic areas non-liberal? You argue that liberalism has a negative effect on the areas that it surrounds, yet when I make it clear to you that this does not hold true in the most liberal city in the country, you dismiss it as an exception? Your hypothesis fails, period. There may be examples of liberal areas that have brought down the areas surrounding it due to its liberal attitude, but the Bay Area is not one of them and I’d love to see you provide me with clearcut evidence of any area that this does hold true for.

Also, I’m sorry that you fail to see a connection with your argument and my “non-sequitur”. I find it revealing that you refer to those comments as non-sequiturs, and I find it equally revealing that you think me calling you ignorant is the result of “elitist liberalism”. You made my point for me in that regard. Clearly you dismiss my libertarian leanings because my beliefs on this topic don’t match yours. But you and Push can keep on deluding yourself into thinking you’ve destroyed my line of logic. I suppose the day that Push says, “you know what DB, you’re right” is the day I’ve gone off the deep end anyways. I’m glad you and him disagree with me; it tells me I’m still thinking for myself and not following the lead of others who have done all the thinking for me by assigning blame to all things liberal.

54

I want to thank our worthless piece of shit mayor, for bankrupting this city, and encouraging his La Raza-Mecha plan upon the city, with which he has had great success.

I want to thank the even more worthless LA City Council, for encouraging further spending when the LA housing bubble burst, with further government jobs and increased government pensions. The disease known as Liberalism with entitlement thinking has led to the demise of a once incredible economy. They also promoted sanctuary city policies, by having the mother fucking LA Police Chief stand up publicly for NOT enforcing immigration laws, and defending Special Order 40 (a law which prevents cops from inquiring about immigration status of anyone arrested).

Take note my friends, you all know me, you all know what I am about to say, I am a broken fucking record with this shit…

Do not let the Liberal mindset take foothold in your city or state. Los Angeles and California are why. If you want to prevent a 3rd world cesspool, a broken economy, huge unemployment, massive illegal immigration, incredibly high welfare rates, enforce the laws on the books. With a sledgehammer, with mother fucking THOR’S HAMMER.

By the way, today is the Laker Victory Parade, the city treasurer said we have no money to pay for this, but we are still having it, take a stab at who will pay for it…you are looking at him, and others like him. I have to pay to watch thugs and hoods wreck my city. Thank you Mayor Villa-Whore-rosa. You piece of fucking shit, you stood there claiming to be committed to the city, asshole you can’t even stay committed to your wife or your mistress. This guy cheats on his wife with a news reporter, then cheats on the reporter with another reporter, yet he is committed, more like he should be committed.

/rant.

55

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

By the way, today is the Laker Victory Parade, the city treasurer said we have no money to pay for this, but we are still having it, take a stab at who will pay for it…you are looking at him, and others like him.
/rant.[/quote]

Un-fucking-belieavable.

Sacramento voted 10-1 to boycott AZ…you should see the city’s facebook page…the boycott is going to hurt.

56

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The reason Signore Maddox was headed in the right direction is liberalism does indeed create the entitlement mentality because liberalism creates the entitlements.

Entitlements create poverty.

Poverty creates “who gives a shit.”

“Who gives a shit” creates the atmosphere for riots.

The atmosphere for riots combined with any ol’ reason creates…riots.

Now Dumb Bell Cooper, you are dismissed.[/quote]

So if the Dutch win the World Cup… will Amsterdam still be there the next day? Because they’ve had a large entitlement system for long enough for the rest of your secondary effects to play through.[/quote]

Shucks, Otep the Mighty, I don’t know nuthin bout Masterdam, I’m am Murrican.

Can you possibly tell us why LA or Detroit can and do riot and Dallas and Portland don’t?[/quote]

I reckon its cuz’n them thar eyeligull immuhgrants.

From a psychological point of view, something has to give license, and it could be these places have a history of rioting, which in turn gives license to the behavior, since it’s rarely fully put down (bad press), like BPTiger above mentioned. I think it has more to do along that vein than welfare state benefits, because while Europe has its riots, it correlates poorly with government intrusion into the market.

But it also correlates poorly with poverty: You never hear of riots in Apalachia, or N or S Dakota. Perhaps because the only thing they could destroy would be the family’s last good pair of shoes. And even then, you can still boil the leather for taste.

It also coorlates poorly with race: political protests turn into riots the world over, and while the green revolution in Iran and the protests against Zelaya in Honduras and the red-shirts in Thailand have more credence for rioting than the people in LA… it’s the same phenomenon.

So… no, I can’t tell you.

Though maybe it’s because the Trailblazers and the Mavericks suck.[/quote]

Lost count of the straw men in that post. Could make an army of scarecrows. [/quote]

Curious. You see any straw in this?

[quote] Push wrote:
The reason Signore Maddox was headed in the right direction is liberalism does indeed create the entitlement mentality because liberalism creates the entitlements.

Entitlements create poverty.

Poverty creates “who gives a shit.”

“Who gives a shit” creates the atmosphere for riots.

The atmosphere for riots combined with any ol’ reason creates…riots. [/quote]

EDIT: I’ll own that the poverty lines above held little water. Both North and South Dakota have lower-than-median poverty rates: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_lev-economy-percent-below-poverty-level

Curiously, Texas scores relatively high, but on a closer inspection, its mostly in the area right next to Mexico.
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/08/11/united-states-poverty-map/

You still have incredibly poor areas with little rioting - South Dakota’s Sioux reservations, for example: http://poverty.suite101.com/article.cfm/poverty_in_south_dakota which should help support my argument that rioting doesn’t correlate with poverty. Or, poverty alone, at least.

I still haven’t seen a really good, concise, elegant answer to ‘what causes rioting’ that wasn’t full of holes. Fairly obvious holes, at that.

58

I don’t think this issue is related to poverty as it is morals and values. We have a bunch of fucking savages here, mostly from south of the border, who live the same way they did when they were south of the border. You have immigrants from other countries who are also poor, and still are not the barbarians these pieces of shit are.

60

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t think this issue is related to poverty as it is morals and values. We have a bunch of fucking savages here, mostly from south of the border, who live the same way they did when they were south of the border. You have immigrants from other countries who are also poor, and still are not the barbarians these pieces of shit are.

[/quote]
I know what you’re trying to say. And folks like Otep don’t understand what I am trying to say. Poverty does NOT inevitably lead to rioting. But I believe the “don’t give a shit” attitude AND poverty - when they are joined at the hip and birthed from the loins of the entitlement mentality - DO tend to lead to the type of situations where riots arise.

For precisely the above reason, Appalachia, an example of poverty cited by Otep, does not produce common instances of rioting. Savvy?[/quote]

You sure its not because of their isolation, like it is with the Sioux nations in SDakota? I mean, its not like Apalachia hasn’t been home to a series of welfare programs, so I don’t know how they haven’t developed an entitlement mentality and this mysterious attitude problem to couple with their poverty and cause massive rioting at the least provocation.

FWIW, I don’t disagree with you… I just have a hard time quantifying ‘don’t give a shit’ attitude. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but it does mean its particularly unhelpful in explaining social phenomenon. We might as well call it ‘animal spirits’.