"Anything They Wanted to Take, They Can Take It, Because These Businesses Have Insurance"

"That is reparations."


From "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday," a story by NBC Chicago, quoting someone whom a BLM Chicago video last fall described as "our own Ariel Atkins" (and who was described as "lead organizer" for BLM Chicago in sources such as the Chicago Tribune [June 13]):

"I don't care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy's or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats," Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. "That makes sure that person has clothes."

Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting.

"That is reparations," Atkins said. "Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance."

NEXT: Is Kamala Harris Legally African American, Indian, Both, Neither, or Something Else?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This Ariel Atkins sounds almost as consequential and representative as Marjorie Taylor Greene, the QAnon-embracing kook who will be the official Republican candidate for Congress on the ballot in a Georgia district in a few months.

    Or Lauren Boebert, the QAnon kook who is the Republican candidate for Congress in a Colorado district.

    Or Jo Rae Perkins, the QAnon kook who is the Republican candidate for United States Senate in Oregon.

    Or Angela Stanton King, the QAnon kook (and Trump-pardoned felon) who is the Republican candidate for Congress in another Georgia district.

    Or Mike Cargile, the QAnon kook and Republican on the ballot for House in California.

    Or Alison Hayden and Erin Cruz, also QAnon kooks and Republican candidates for House in California.

    Or Theresa Radborn of Illinois, another proud QAnon kook and official Republican Party candidate for Congress.

    Or Billy Prempeh (New Jersey), Ron Weber (Ohio), Johnny Teague (Texas), who . . . ‘well, you know what kinda eyes they got.’

    1. Nice two wrongs make a right argument.

      Again, isn’t the left supposed to be better than this?

      1. It seems the only way you have of addressing the the wrongdoing of your side is pointing out those evil Republicans are worse.

        How about policing your own so they don’t undermine your cause.

        1. You’re right. Arthur’s whataboutism is as wrong as anyone else’s.

      2. My argument is that Prof. Volokh engages in misleading, tone-deaf, partisan cherry-picking at a movement conservative blog with a thin, diminishing legal veneer.

        May the better ideas win.

        Which — I recognize — is easy for to say, because my side has won the culture war.

        1. .005 out of 10. False claim of winning. False claim of veneer. Personal attack, as is typical. But, no threat of oral rape. Will wait for Indian spambot to arrive to see if they are more on-topic.

          1. Pres. Trump publicly congratulated Marjorie Taylor Green today. Prof. Volokh — like his movement conservative (and “Ted Cruz-style libertarian”) fans — apparently is still too flustered by what Ariel Atkins is saying to notice.

            Carry on, clingers.

        2. Your “side” seems to have won the same way the Jacobins did.

          A false victory born out of arrogance and terror.

          1. Which element of a half-century of liberal-libertarian progress do you deny — or, more important, expect conservatives to reverse?

            Will America resume treating gays like dirt (because Jesus hates them so)?

            Is teacher-led prayer coming back to legitimate schools?

            Are Social Security and Medicare to be dismantled?

            Will abortion be criminalized (particularly in modern, educated states)?

            Are clingers going to put creationism back in legitimate science classrooms?

            Will conservatives eliminate environmental and consumer protections?

            Is old-school Republican voter suppression about to make a comeback?

            When, in your judgment, should we expect to see reversal of the tide of our culture war, enabling conservatives to stop the liberal-libertarian mainstream from shaping American progress against the wishes and efforts of conservatives?

            Most conservatives recognize they have lost the fight for our national culture — that’s why they are so disaffected and desperate in modern America.

            1. Looks like you conflate liberal, libertarian, and progressive here along with some bigoted mischaracterizations. Beyond that–in citing established programs which you hope to maintain, aren’t you the conservative?

        3. You relish whataboutism, whining about fifth rate colleges, insults of those you disagree with.
          Carry on clinger!

        4. Do you expect negative coverage of progressives from the left-leaning blogs I’m sure you also visit, or do you only expect a commitment to the fairness doctrine and equal time from the volokh conspiracy?

          I’m pretty sure the Huffington Post will not be covering the comments of Ariel Atkins, same as the volokh conspiracy doesn’t rail against conservatives as much as you want.

          You’ve already recognized this is conservative-leaning, if it’s slant offends you, why do you come here?

    2. Some shrill partisans try too hard.

    3. So you’re comparing BLM to a nutbag conspiracy group? That sounds about right.

      1. No, the remarks of an impromptu spokeswomen for a largely ad hoc organization are not as troubling as the equally reckless yet far more deranged views of a major party’s candidates for Congress.

        1. It’s not clear to me why the comparison is even relevant. Is a BLM spokesperson condoning looting a good thing, yes or no? Comparison here is just deflection.

          1. I agree they’re unrelated. And as I said elsewhere I don’t find Arthur’s whataboutism helpful. But if you’re going to engage the whatabout, do it accurately, You’re mischaracterizing it in an attempt to dunk on BLM while minimizing that fact that what’s newsworthy isn’t the mere existence of another right wing nutbag conspiracy group, but that the Republican Party is running several supporters of that group for Congress.

            1. Now do Omar in Minnesota and Tiab in Detroit and similar Jew haters. Or the several Farrakan supporters in Congress.

              1. This whataboutism is pretty pointless, but Omar and Tlaib are not near the same spectrum as Q Anon supporters. Anyway… Who are the Farrakan supporters you had in mind? (Not a rhetorical question, genuinely interested in who those people are.)

                1. Ice Cube is a Congressman, isn’t he?

              2. Bob, I’ve made my views on Omar known here, and on Farrakhan and anyone who supports him as well. I’ll do it again if you want. But first, I don’t recall ever seeing you gainsay the antisemitic QAnon and its many GOP supporters, apologists, and now candidates.

        2. *These are not the droids you are looking for*

    4. Any politician who does not loudly condemn her is as guilty as she is. Remember, [WHITE] SILENCE = VIOLENCE. Unless, of course, your side is the one trying to to do the silencing.

      1. I agree she should be condemned. But you’re replying to a comment about the GOP’s QAnon congressional candidates, and you don’t seem to have saved so much as a mildly harsh word for them.

        Care to augment your comment with a demand for their condemnation as well, or is your complaint simply the unprincipled tribalism it appears to be?

        1. Whataboutism doesn’t deserve to be defended. But, orangemanbad, so it’s ok. Nice equivocation.

          1. I’ve criticized the whataboutism several times, so there’s no equivocation. But you do you.

            And by the way, the orange man is bad.

            1. “But you’re replying to a [completely off-topic, unrelated, pointless shit post by Artie] comment about the GOP’s QAnon congressional candidates, and you don’t seem to have saved so much as a mildly harsh word for them.”

              Yup, no equivocation here.

              Artie’s comment is trash, full stop.

              1. I’m not equivocating. I don’t like whatabouting, whoever does it. The proper responses are to ignore it or criticize it for whatabouting and move on. Once you engage it on the merits, you can’t claim immunity to counter-responses. Nobody made you open that door.

        2. Versus your in-group bias and apparent composition fallacy? Major political parties will have people with fringe beliefs. Some will be indefensible, but will be defended due to groupthink, or expediency, or laziness, or fear.

        3. “and you don’t seem to have saved so much as a mildly harsh word for them.”

          Then write your own blog post so we can properly condemn the right wing agitators and appease the gods of political correctness.

  2. Where is the chorus of politicians calling on everyone to denounce this endorsement of violence and looting? Seems they are oddly quiet….and that silence is saying a lot people should listen to.

    1. Because that goes without saying, Jimmy.

      You want to turn this into a bigger thing. I don’t think that’ll happen.

      1. What else goes without saying?

        Or is it only team Blue that gets off with “goes without saying”?

        1. Lots of stuff.
          I don’t require every Republican to declaim white supremacy, I presume they do until demonstrated otherwise.

          1. How many times does a Republican professor get to use a vile racial slur before that presumption fades, Sarcastro?

            1. Yep, they ought to ban quoting that well-known white supremacists, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact, quoting him ought to be a firing offense.

          2. Bizarre how you seem assume that only the GOP are involved.to the point that a statement needs to be made. The evidence suggests this is not the case, as does the progressive mantra ‘everything is sexist/racist/homophobic.’ Do you also think a politician ‘declaiming’ something counts for anything?

            1. I’m just saying any time a random guy does something with a confederate flag down south there is a chorus of politicians who push for Trump to “denounce white supremacy.” Would seem to me that if these same politicians have any values they would be demanding the same litmus test from everyone for this type of advocacy.

              1. Did you forget that Trump ripped NASCAR for its “Flag decision” (sic), Jimmy?

                (What kind of loser capitalizes “flag” when referring to the Confederate flag?

                Other than a bigoted, illiterate, right-wing loser, I mean.)

                1. Well there is Black so why not also capitalize Flag if you feel so inclined…?

            2. I know which part the white supremacists loudly support, Hank.

              I do think denouncing someone says something about what groups a politician aligns themselves with.
              But, of course, the whole ‘denounce or I assume you must love it’ started with Jimmy, above.

              1. Uh huh … https://apnews.com/a97b8b2d48c163c5965c2574ccbbe3d3

                And as the anti-white racists in the Democrat party have more power than any white supremacist…

                Or are we supposed to ignore all of the anti-semites, communist, etc… that endorse the Democrat party? Or the elected Democrats that have praised/supported Castro, Chavez et al

                1. David Duke endorses Trump for President. Does that mean something?
                  I don’t know what you’re trying to get at. Other than reflexive partisan smearing.

                  1. And Farrakhan (and several communist partys) endorse Democrats.

                    It’s not even guilt by association, it’s a useless distraction and stupid. Now, if Trump praised Duke, we’d have another matter. Like Obama hanging with Screwy Louie and all of those Democrat congress critters that have praised Castro/Chavez, et al.

                    This line of inquiry may not lead you where you’d like it to.

                    1. Obama appeared in one photo with Farrakhan. If that constitutes praise, then Trump has repeatedly praised Jeffrey Epstein.

                      During the 2016 campaign, Farrakhan had only scorn for Hillary and praise for Trump, who won his support by turning down “Jewish” money. Then when Trump was President, Farrakhan praised him again, eliciting enthusiasm from, among others, Candace Owens and Glenn Beck. The chorus of RW disavowal and condemnation was… nonexistent.

                      And while Trump didn’t praise David Duke, he did praise Alex Jones. That’s close enough for government work.

  3. That chick is nuts. She’s the kind of person that gets other people killed.

  4. “I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats,’ Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. ‘That makes sure that person has clothes.”

    Apparently, fencing stolen loot and donning stolen designer duds is all about being able to eat and not go naked. God forbid that any alternative entail their robbing a grocery store and Salvation Army.

    Reparations now equal bling, or stolen overpriced and ridiculously hawked designer sweatshop fash and accessories. Black lives moving up? Not so much, as they aspire to be mired in the gross artificial materialism of their alleged oppressors.

    Anyway, if you don’t pay insurance premiums, it’s all free, yes?

    1. I’m not aware anyone in Cicago is actually starving to death, what with SNAP and food pantries. In fact the slogan “children going hungry” has given way to the slogan “food insecurity”.

    2. This has always been the disconnect in pro-looting rhetoric. Of course there can be situations where it is OK to steal stuff- hurricane, FEMA isn’t out there yet, your family is starving and you can break into a market and steal something to feed them. I don’t think the jury will convict you.

      But the looting that accompanies protests has always been about opportunistic theft of valuable stuff. It’s not a revolutionary act. It’s just crime.

      1. This wasn’t “opportunistic” looting. According to the news accounts, it was highly organized, planned looting.

        Police shooting of Englewood man reignites political debate and looting as Mag Mile trashed, 13 cops injured, 2 people shot

        Various local accounts describe caravans of cars dropping off “retail hit squads” that systematically looted the area.

        1. If the organized looting was in response to “Police shooting of Englewood man” that would make it “opportunistic” yes?

          1. No. “Opportunistic” would be, “Well, we’re here, it’s chaotic, might as well rip something off.”

            Not, “Extensively planned in advance with logistics taken care of, then fall pretext for riot generated for a cover story.”

        2. Well, if “Various local accounts” said it, it must be true!

          1. Not necessarily, but they’re not less trustworthy than national outlets willing to talk about peaceful protests in front of burning buildings.

  5. Nothing says “finally made amends for enslaving great-great-great-great granddaddy” like some new bling from Coach. Shit if that was their idea of reparations should have said so. More people might have been on board.

    1. At least you didn’t write that in dialect. Jeez.

      1. What dialect might that be?

      2. What exactly are you objecting to?

        1. I don’t think he is comfortable with the assertion that some in the BLM movement seem to think sufficient “reparations” are a few luxury retail items.

        2. ‘new bling from Coach.’

          1. Only black people may say bling?

            Does your racism and idiocy know no bounds?

            1. Do you know how stereotypes work?

              1. Do you how assumptions & accusations of racism work? Using African American vernacular is widespread in US and world culture. Perhaps trying to refute his point would be more effective.

                1. I think I’ve heard the word “bling” used by just about everyone these days. You are trying to make this more of a race issue so it fits nicely into The Narrative right Sarc? Pretty lame.

                  1. Sure, Jimmy. You were talking about Norwegian protesters.

                    Your mask is slipping.

                    1. “Bling” is listed in the Oxford Dictionary. Just do an internet search for the term. It is widely used and hardly “slang.”

                      Speaking of slipping, your Narrative is doing just that right now.

                    2. “Bling” is listed in the Oxford Dictionary.

                      There’s plenty of slang in the dictionary. That tells us nothing. What makes your use racist isn’t the word itself, but the context. If I’m told a relative is sick, and respond, “oy vey,” that’s not at all antisemitic. If someone on a Stormfront thread about Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide says “oy vey,” it’s very antisemitic.

                    3. “If someone on a Stormfront thread about Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide says “oy vey,” it’s very antisemitic.”

                      That’s just a weird thing to say. Honestly, it is. Like people whose views you don’t like can’t use the same language you do? If they utter the same words, it means something different, because you apply a presumption of evil?

                      I think we need to roll back this increasing language policing, where it’s declared that some people just aren’t allowed to use some words. It’s reaching insane levels, literally insane.

                    4. Brett, have you heard of social media? Nazis hating on Jews with ironic “oy veys” are very much a thing.

              2. Yep. It looks a lot like racism and idiocy.

              3. Good lord you are a troll.

                1. Always resent comments like this. I engage in good faith. If you think what I said is wrong, then don’t just name call.

                  Just because nonblacks use the word bling doesn’t mean the use of the word bling isn’t associated with blackness. That’s how stereotypes work.

                  1. I engage in good faith

                    No, in fact what you are doing is impugning motive. You are even doing so in the face of what was explained to have been meant. You are using the sophist’s tactic of trying to put words in your opponents mouth. You are either smart enough to realize that trying to win an argument by misstating your opponents position is by nature dishonest or too thick to see the issue. Since you claim to have the capability to do at least base physics, I would guess that you are at least a brighter than Kirkland. Thus, a guess of dishonesty seems like a pretty good first assessment.

                    1. You characterized Sarcastro and his argument, but I don’t see where you engaged it. How are you not doing what you accused him of?

                  2. Good lord, Sarc … stop trying to wall up blacks in a language ghetto. Like all sub-cultures, black slang becomes American slang (as does music, food, etc…)

                    That crap is from modern leftism and it is RACIST.

                    1. Well, this is a simplistic view.

                      Try applying it to the N-word. Or talking in dialect.

                      Looks like maybe your ‘language ghetto’ paradigm is dumb and doesn’t work.

                    2. Considering all of the white teens singing “nigga” along with their favorite rapper, my point stands. And even if one word (or a couple more) would fall outside of the paradigm, I STILL think it stands.

                      Are you SURE segregation is what you want to defend?

                  3. “I engage in good faith.”

                    It’s good to see that you can still make jokes. Oh, you were being serious? Yeah, you’re not a partisan hack who only deigns to point out the “fallacies” of those you disagree with while committing the selfsame fallacies, you’re totally just here to engage in good faith.

                    Back before WaPo, your moniker was fitting (and your posts were worth reading), now it’s just a lace curtain behind which you attempt to hide your obvious hackery. You really need to take a trip down memory lane, and find out when you stopped being Sarcastr0 and started being Artie’s congregant. I miss Sarcastr0 circa 2013-14.

  6. But what the people in those communities where these riots are not realizing is that these riots and looting and murders that have happened in these communities will cause the residents and any one else buy in these stores will have to pay more for the same products after the riots than before. The insurance companies will have to raise their rates to cove the loss that they have suffered. That is unless the insurance companies had a clause the they don’t have to pay for riots or war damage then the owner of the looted and burned out businesses will be left holding the bag.

    1. You seem to be giving the looting folks the benefit of advanced rational thought…

      1. I’d give the people who organized the looking the benefit of that.

        The thing is, if your organization profits off of a group feeling oppressed and downtrodden, encouraging things that will cause them to feel more oppressed and downtrodden is actually to your benefit.

        So, you encourage riots. The riots quite properly result in hostile police actions, because the citizens you’re attacking have a right to police protection. And the riots destroy the local economy, resulting in more people economically suffering.

        So you’ve got more police violence, and more economic grievances feeding your organization recruits. So long as you can keep people from blaming YOU for the damage you did.

        The media will help a lot with that.

    2. It isn’t usually people who actually live in the communities who defend the looting. It’s well off organizers from the suburbs and students at selective colleges.

      1. Some folks might accuse you of parroting right-wing talking points, not stating facts. Same for your comment about looting & protest.

        1. Hank when you tell us that you live on on the South side of Chicago (or take the L from 63rd street), I’ll pay more attention to you.

        2. I lived in South Central LA right after the 1992 civil unrest for three years. My neighbors did not have a high opinion of looters.

    3. Curly4, a lot of residents realize all that. There have been several reports of residents confronting rioters.

      BLM and Antifa activists are revolutionairies, violence is a tool.

  7. A second cousin who is into family genealogy wrote me last week that our great-great-great grandparents supplied a safe house and provisions to slaves escaping the South. They were part of the Underground Railroad.

    None of our family were slave owners or raised to be racist, but as Caucasians, we are assumed by virulent leftists to be racist by virtue of our lack of color.

    While there are still too many instances of racial, class and gender inequities and instances of deprivation of opportunity and protection of fair law in practice, this charade of social justice having nothing to do with actual personal or familial racial guilt is becoming counterproductive to all of us… and certainly wearing to the point of intolerance.

    How many non-WASP Caucasian working and middle class citizens can’t afford Gucci and feel entitled to smash storefronts to steal the cliched products? Why don’t we also ask how many working and middle class Caucasians can afford and purchase Gucci?

    And why has this become some kind of sick metric of social justice? It’s all an opposite world exercise of material “justice” via redistribution by force. Many people of all colors and creeds cannot afford or choose not to afford designer bling, based on personal taste, responsibility, and budgets. They also choose not to steal the crap and justify the takings with garbage rationales, because they respect themselves.

    1. Penultimate para edit:

      Just how many non-white working and middle class citizens who cannot afford Gucci feel entitled to smash storefronts to steal designer cliched products? Why don’t we also ask how many working and middle class Caucasians seriously can afford Gucci non-knock-offs? Are we to believe the racial divide is all about a false impression of and ridiculous drive toward conspicuous consumption?

    2. What this alleged spokeswoman said is repugnant. Show me that it’s the majority view in BLM and I’ll be very concerned. Until then I take it as the ravings of a reckless idiot whose only effect is to fuel the broad brush condemnations of BLM by people like you.

      1. Can you think of anyone in a left-leaning social circle who would full-on defend Gucci? Fashion for the elite, probably made in sweatshops, overpriced, symbol of the contempt of the bosses for the masses. I can think of a lot of people who would think to themselves “good choice” and “Gucci deserves it.”
        It’s pure Robin Hood, which is a very sympathetic trope. Sure, there’s some dissonance with all the smashing and burning, but it’s the American story of the downtrodden finally accessing resources. It’s a victory march. Atkins is no reckless idiot, she’s assisting with the planning of months of continuous protests, which is a heck of a logistics challenge.
        Well beyond BLM, it’s a view in a large portion of the country. Property may not be theft generally, but fancy property most certainly is theft, and should be thefted right back if you’re brave enough.

        Now probably there are BLM associates who aren’t 100% in support of looting at this point after several months, when it just all looks planned. In fact people who support the Movement for Black Lives were trying to put the brakes on it when it was the “white anarchists” breaking things. The mainstream media has quite a few voices saying the violence needs to stop.

        We are allowed to ask if BLM, or some parts of it, is larger than, or not the same as, the movement for racial justice and police accountability. We are allowed to ask if, in some cities, there are individuals who are legitimately affiliated with BLM who really are getting enthralled to the chaos and will have trouble stopping. We are allowed to wonder what role agents provocateurs are playing.
        “She didn’t mean it, who thinks that, that has nothing to do with social justice” Is not the answer. It is the behavior of left fragility when uncomfortable questions are raised. Looting absolutely plays a role in the movement for social justice.
        Also, the decentralized command structure is very useful for exactly this. There’s no one main leader to interview, so it’s much harder for the media to get in gear. Protests used to be about getting media attention and applying public pressure. This seems to be about doing damage to an area of a city and then using that to pressure the city government. It is a different dynamic.

        1. This is just furious hand-waiving that proves nothing.

          1. And Sarcastr0 knows all about hand-waiving.

      2. I don’t know if it’s the majority view in BLM but it is definitely more than just this one person: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/08/blm-advocates-looting.php

        “Loot back” is a catchy slogan and I expect we’ll see more of it. Jesse Jackson’s characterization of it being “humiliating” is not likely to get much traction.

      3. Leo Marvin says:
        “What this alleged spokeswoman said is repugnant. Show me that it’s the majority view in BLM and I’ll be very concerned. Until then I take it as the ravings of a reckless idiot whose only effect is to fuel the broad brush condemnations of BLM by people like you.”

        You know, your position is ridiculous because it is born of ignorance. Have you even bothered to look at the blacklivesmatterchicago website, and read their press release addressing the rioting? They are in solidarity with this “reckless idiot.”

        Search out the BLM organization and chapter websites and read what they say about themselves, and then make an informed analysis.

        1. I am less inclined to think his position is borne of ignorance, ‘though that is possible. That it is rooted in bias, and the possibility that the choice to misdirect is also likely. Some in-groups have the tendency to make statements and assume that they will not be caught in a lie.

        2. You know, your position is ridiculous because it is born of ignorance. Have you even bothered to look at the blacklivesmatterchicago website, and read their press release addressing the rioting? They are in solidarity with this “reckless idiot.”

          You may not be aware of this, but a 12-year old can put-up a website. It doesn’t make him a spokesperson for black America.

    3. Two of my (WASP) great-great-grandfathers left Maine to fight in the war to free the slaves. One came back without his foot and the other didn’t come back at all. They made that sacrifice — for this?!?

      1. I’m sure they’d be very proud of their great-great-grandson’s lobbying for a civil war reboot that gets the ending right.

  8. I’m not sure why people are outraged. This IS what that person thinks and she also thinks this IS OK. This IS also what the Left thinks is OK. Does any of this actually surprise you?

    1. Define “the Left.”

        1. I’ve said this is not OK, but since I’m the left I have to think it’s OK, right?

          Your argument works fine as tribal poo-flinging, but as reasoning it leaves something to be desired.

  9. Man, I was all set to settle back in my chair and watch Sarc and the Rev twist themselves into pretzel knots trying to rationalize this one….

    And then I realized I was fresh out of popcorn. Damn!

    1. Don’t worry I’m popping some more. I’ve got kettle corn and cheddar cheese. What kind would you prefer?

      1. Pass the kettle. I don’t care about the argument, I just love kettle corn! 🙂

    2. It’s pretty clear from the last thread that this isn’t something I’m going to rationalize.

      And yet you persist with your clearly wrong view.

      Funny, that.

      1. yeah you’re going to parse and disassemble and try and convince others there is daylight between the Noble Democrat BLM protestors and the Democrat looters, rioters, and murderers ravaging Democrat cities and Democrat suburbs.

        1. Because there is.

          1. You’re correct. One group has apparently decided to ignore the facts and science of medical examiner, toxicology, and now bodycam evidence. The others have done that and are also destroying property, committing assault & battery, looting, committing arson, attempting murder. Acting on emotion before knowing the facts almost always causes major issues -euphemism, forgive me. But it does allow for apologia, poor rationale, and fallacies.

            1. toxicology

              Oh, you’re a Floyd death truther, eh?

              If you don’t think BLM is a big deal, do you think police use of force generally is out of control?

              1. S-0,
                1) Police violence is out of control, even in cities such as Oakland where the force has a very large fraction of black officers.
                2) Downtown Oakland now looks pathetic with boarded up windows etc. making the covid depressed environment far worse.
                Violence, destruction of storefronts, looting hurts all. Given covid closures, many places will fail permanently. In the end all Oakland’s citizens, both woke and asleep, will be harmed.

                1. Can’t argue with any of that.
                  Riots and looting are bad news for just about everyone other than the looters, and hurt whatever cause they’re associated with. Absent an actual revolution, rioters included in those being hurt. Giving up the moral high ground like that only undercuts the cause.

                  (But see those first few weeks in late May/early June where nationwide riots seemed to shake something loose. I think that’s a one-off though that only managed to not screw things up thanks to police’s overreaction)

                  Almost took a job in SF that would have required me to move to Oakland cause of the pay. I do love Cali.

              2. What, you think you can make the fentanyl in his blood go away by calling anybody who mentions it a “truther”? It’s right there in the autopsy report. The guy’s blood showed multiple illegal drugs.

                The guy had multiple problems; Bad heart disease, sickle cell anemia, and, yes, drugs in his system, any one of which could have transformed a knee hold that wouldn’t have hurt a healthy person into a death sentence.

                That doesn’t mean that the hold wasn’t applied inappropriately, or too long. It probably is enough that the cop should have been charged with manslaughter, not murder. That autopsy report stands a good chance of acquitting Chauvin of the murder charge.

                Indeed, I understand the prosecutor warned that upping the charge to murder stood a good chance of resulting in an acquittal.

                1. No, Brett.
                  This is still dumb, because you have no proof of causality.

                  On the other hand, causality falls right out of the fact pattern of knee on the neck, saying he couldn’t breath, followed shortly thereafter by death.

                  1. To be fair, it fits with the coronavirus truther mentality: “Wait, he had heart disease? Then his death wasn’t really because of covid!”

                  2. Except that the leaked bodycam footage shows Floyd’s claims he couldn’t breathe starting before the knee on the neck, which eliminates the knee as the cause of those statements. Your “fact pattern”, and thus your theory of causality, has been destroyed by new evidence.

          2. There difference being about 30 minutes.

            1. So you wanna arrest people for a bit of pre-crime? What could go wrong!

  10. Anyone who excuses, much less commits looting is undermining an important social movement. I hope Ariel Atkins is disavowed and removed from any position of responsibility in BLM.

    1. Or maybe this social movement is devoid of importance because there is nothing at stake and it is a convenient cover for looting and violence.

      1. If you’re saying 15 to 25 million people attended those BLM demonstrations as cover for a handful of petit criminals, you may have just uncovered not only the largest criminal enterprise ever, but the stupidest!

        Don’t be a knucklehead.

        1. Well those numbers are vastly overstated first.

          What I think happened was the media ginned up a race conflict for some ratings and a lot of people who were looking for an excuse to break lockdown to get out and socialize found a convenient one. Once the shine wore off and the looting and general lawlessness began you will notice the rallies and protests disappeared rather quickly.

          Now if it wasn’t for the media coverage keeping the race row going it would have faded into the collective trash heap of failed liberal causes back in July.

        2. “15 to 25 million people ”

          Ok Mr. President. It was a large number, no need to double or triple it.

          1. See reply to Jimmy, above.

    2. Marxism, Critical Theory, and Democrat fundraising is not an important social movement .

  11. Why can’t businesses simply spring for some signs they can put in their windows – “Black-Owned Business”?

    Or for those who can’t make such a claim, they can donate to the Black Lives Matter organization and have the receipt prominently displayed in the window of their shop.

    Then presumably it would be OK to arrest any vandals or looters.

    As it is, how can they prosecute vandals and looters, when the targeted business might well be non-black-owned and never voluntarily gave a dime to the demonstrators’ parent organization?

    1. You mean like the mafia like demand BLM gave to restaurant owners in NOLA? Do what they want and they won’t burn down your property. Sounds oddly like organized crime of the 60s and 70s, right?

    2. Wjy can’t businesses issue store security M240 machine guns?

  12. RE: “I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure […] that person has clothes.”

    Yes: a tan jumpsuit. That’s clothes.

    1. And fashionable to some!

  13. The argument would sell better if they were looting grocery stores and stealing work boots from K-Mart.

    Bullshit always sounds like bullshit.

    1. Workboots involve working, which these little darlings never will.

        1. Mindreading again. The more you trot out the accusations when it may not be due, the more it loses its relevance.

          1. Got to keep up The Narrative. The error code for not comply with it this time around is “claim racism.” All that Sarc did was properly execute the error code that was programmed into him by his higher ups.

            1. Yeah, these protesters are so lazy and never work.

              Are the mask protesters also lazy?

              Don’t be dense.

              1. Ed is talking about looters. Why are you talking about protestors?

                1. Fine then.

                  You think looters are all unemployed and lazy?

                  1. Some are employed as criminals.

                  2. Obviously not lazy. They can get motivated if they like. Makes me think if they wanted to they could hold down a decent job.

                  3. What makes you think they don’t have jobs?

                    1. Why does it matter to you?

                      But I think normal employed people don’t go out late at night and loot.

                    2. Because I prefer not to pre-judge groups of people based on…well, prejudice.

                      I think you’re wrong about what normal employed people might do.

                  4. The ones that got arrested in Boston were mostly spoilt White brats from the suburbs.

                    1. Why are you Dr Ed 2?

                    2. Soros got the other one.

                      But he is legion.

  14. JFTR, I too disapprove of looting and vandalism, and think the perpetrators should be arrested and appropriately punished.

    I’m wondering when that happens to those who looted the Trump Foundation.

    1. Just can’t resist taking a swipe at Trump, eh? What about the rampant corruption of Biden and Harris? See “Profiles in Corruption:”

      1. Quite a few unflattering pieces about Biden & Harris here at Reason. And, if one prefers, one can watch Harris get taken down in the debates before she dropped out, blaming sexism… Her history as a prosecutor is abysmal. Biden’s long history of being on the wrong side of civil liberties bills, votes for war, qualified immunity, Operation Choke Point -these are a matter of record.

        1. She is pretty bad and not a great candidate. But yet the media can’t seem to publish anything except glowing reviews of her. Just look at CNN’s front page. Not on piece even questioning if she was the right pick. Nothing about her background. Just “look at how awesome this woman is and did you know she is both a WOMAN and PERSON OF COLOR???”

          1. It seems clear she will struggle to attract the half-educated bigot, superstitious rube, and disaffected clinger votes.

            1. Keep up to the looting and rioting and we will see…

              1. You figure more looting and rioting would persuade the bigots, right-wing rubes, and disaffected clingers to vote for Sen. Harris?

                Seems a strange argument.

            2. She has already attracted those on the left who care only that she has a vagina, is (supposedly) black, or that she has a (D) after her name, and are happy to ignore the intense corruption and immorality that characterize her entire career.

      2. Just talking about looting in general, publius.

        I don’t like it. Your attitude seems to be that it depends on the politics of the looters.

  15. BLM, and much of the black movement in general, are setting back their cause at great speed. They statements of these “official” voices, and the actions of the black “community” are reinforcing, confirming, the negative stereotypes of blacks as perceived by white, law abiding citizens like me.

    There is absolutely no justification or excuse for the looting and “wilding” committed principally by black “youth” in supposed response to injustice, but in reality simply an excuse.

    Do I want to socialize with these people? Live with them? Live near them? No, no, and no. Failing any other indicator of the kind of place I want to live or people I want to be with and near, skin color is the most reliable one.

    When their “leaders” lash out at whites as those responsible for their lawlessness, and rationalize criminal and antisocial behavior, it means this isn’t getting better any time soon.

    1. Do I want to socialize with these people? Live with them? Live near them? No, no, and no. Failing any other indicator of the kind of place I want to live or people I want to be with and near, skin color is the most reliable one.

      Yeah, these protests made you a racist.


      1. “Yeah, these protests made you a racist. ”
        Why are you so skeptical of that effect?

        1. Because he acknowledges it.

          It’s absolutely a real effect, creating a narrative, etc. But consciously embracing it, and saying ‘now I only want to live near white people’ that’s a choice. And that’s on him.

          1. It’s not so much wanting to live with white people as not wanting to live in a crime ridden, dangerous environment that is characteristic of black neighborhoods, and large gatherings of black people. I have no issue living among East or South Asians, for example. The black “culture,” that of family and values, respect for law and order, respect for others and others’ property, with some exceptions, is generally bankrupt. This is not new, but has come to a head due to the new tolerance of it, and the unwillingness of politicians to do anything about it. I’ll bet 90% or more of those arrested in Chicago are never prosecuted. And they know it.

            1. This post…does not make your case better.

      2. And again you intentionally conflate the protest with the riots & looting. Almost like you see them as one and the same except when it’s convenient to deflect from a point.

        And what exactly is wrong with wanting to be away from people that have no respect for your life & property and are actively out to harm you?

        1. Do you think black people generally have no respect for your life and property and are actively out to harm you? Because…that’s racist.

          By-and-large they were and are protests. I’m going to call riots what they are and advocate for them to be dealt with accordingly, but the movement remains a protest movement.

          I would point out Publius blames not just BLM but ‘much of the black movement in general’

          1. “Do you think black people generally have no respect for your life and property and are actively out to harm you? Because…that’s racist.”

            Yes, except not actively out to harm me, consequentially will harm me. Look at violent crime on persons and property crime in black neighborhoods, and the statistics among blacks v. other ethnicities.

            I’m talking about Chicago Sunday night, and other incidents of looting and “wilding.”

          2. “I would point out Publius blames not just BLM but ‘much of the black movement in general’”

            I do. It’s a generally racist movement with ideals and philosophy in conflict with the constitution, not to mention intellectually bankrupt. All whites are racist, and it’s impossible for black to be racist, for example. And inherited PTSD due to slavery. And so on.

          3. “Do you think white people generally have no respect for your life and property [and black/brown body] and are actively out to harm you?

            Because…that’s racist.”

            You know, there is enlightenment in that statement somewhere, for one who cares to look.

    2. …the actions of the black “community” are reinforcing, confirming, the negative stereotypes of blacks as perceived by white, law abiding citizens like me.

      Behind every stereotype and caricature is a nugget of truth. And truth can be a bitter pill to swallow.

      1. John Locke pointed out that every prejudice initially originated on an actual/factual observance.

    3. “Failing any other indicator of the kind of place I want to live or people I want to be with and near, skin color is the most reliable one.”

      The Republican Party in a nutshell.

      1. Allen West was just elected chair of the Texas State Republican Party. West grew up in segregated “inner-city Atlanta” and his wife is a (legal) immigrant from Jamaica.

        So much for Kirkland’s reality.


        1. Ed, do you want to keep blacks out of your neighborhood?

          1. Sarcastro ‘s comment “Ed, do you want to keep blacks out of your neighborhood?”

            Sarcastro – please explain why your comment is even relevant to Dr Ed’s comment

            1. Look at the OP of this thread, as quoted by RAK.

              Ed’s defending ThePublius.

          2. Is Spike Lee wanting to keep white people out of his neighborhood racist?

            1. Gentrification is a whole can of worms and is not racially simple. This is not the time or forum to get into it.

              Suffice to say ‘it depends.’

              1. “It’s OK when we do it.”

                Sigh …

  16. If a person is in such bad shape that they need to loot a Nike store and eat the shoes, then I would be OK with them looting.

Please to post comments