St Louis cancelled

[Nick66]

Yes...because every single protest movement in American history was completely non-violent and didn't disrupt society in any way...except for those damn colonists and their destruction of tea

This is about as specious a comparison as the morons who compare Antifa to the GI's who stormed Normandy on D-Day.

 

[Axver]

I'd say what's specious is acting as if protests haven't routinely been violent throughout history.

And those who invaded Normandy were fighting fascists, ergo they were anti-fascist by default, but keep up your alt-right talking points dude.

 

[Nick66]

Of course they have.

But that doesn't justify violent protest. Certainly not in all cases. Comparing the specifically targeted form of protest at the Boston tea party with looting, throwing rocks, etc. at business and people who have nothing to do with what you're protesting is in fact specious.

Ans just because something is "routine" doesn't make it correct.

 

[coolian2]

This is about as specious a comparison as the morons who compare Antifa to the GI's who stormed Normandy on D-Day.

Are you sure you want to add Nick66 to your ignore list?

:click:

 

[Nick66]

LOL...that's OK. Better to be shielded from opinions you disagree with. It's safer that way!

 

[Axver]

Of course they have.

But that doesn't justify violent protest. Certainly not in all cases. Comparing the specifically targeted form of protest at the Boston tea party with looting, throwing rocks, etc. at business and people who have nothing to do with what you're protesting is in fact specious.

Ans just because something is "routine" doesn't make it correct.

The post that sparked this acted as if violence at protests is a very recent phenomenon, that people have "forgotten how to be upset without and [sic] breaking things".

That's demonstrably false.

Whether you agree with violent protest or not is an entirely separate matter.

 

[Nick66]

The post that sparked this acted as if violence at protests is a very recent phenomenon, that people have "forgotten how to be upset without and [sic] breaking things".

That's demonstrably false.

Whether you agree with violent protest or not is an entirely separate matter.

You're quite right. Violent protest is certainly nothing new...whether you agree with it or not.

I'm all for civil disobedience, particularly when that disobedience is targeted specifically at the source of injustice. But except in cases of self defence from imminent harm, I can't condone civil disobedience that involves violence. And I'm especially impatient with using ahistorical nonsense to try to justify it.

 

[aviastar]

Protests that do not disrupt are probably useless and ineffective. Read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail....if you are more committed to law and order than justice, than you are part of the problem. If you value property over the rights of your fellow humans, you are part of the problem.

 

[Nick66]

I notice that you took my word..."violence" and substituted your own..."disrupt." I said nothing about disruptive protests. Indeed, protests must be at least somewhat disruptive to effective. Boycotts. Strikes. Marching. Shutting down a city street. Sit ins. These a disruptive forms of protest that are non-violent.

Since you either didn't understand what I wrote, or intentionally misrepresented it, there's really no point in addressing anything else you said because I don't have any faith you won't continue to do so.

I will say that your last sentence is nonsensical. The position that people should not engage in looting and vandalism doesn't mean you "value" property over human life. That's absurd. You're parroting an empty phrase you read somewhere without thinking about what it means. And if you're excusing violence, I'd submit it's you who need to re-read (or more likely, read) Dr. King.

 

[aviastar]

I notice that you took my word..."violence" and substituted your own..."disrupt." I said nothing about disruptive protests. Indeed, protests must be at least somewhat disruptive to effective. Boycotts. Strikes. Marching. Shutting down a city street. Sit ins. These a disruptive forms of protest that are non-violent.

Since you either didn't understand what I wrote, or intentionally misrepresented it, there's really no point in addressing anything else you said because I don't have any faith you won't continue to do so.

I will say that your last sentence is nonsensical. The position that people should not engage in looting and vandalism doesn't mean you "value" property over human life. That's absurd. You're parroting an empty phrase you read somewhere without thinking about what it means. And if you're excusing violence, I'd submit it's you who need to re-read (or more likely, read) Dr. King.

I'd say the answer lies somewhere between both MLK and Malcom X. Unfortunately we live in a capitalist economy which cheapens everything, elevates property rights and security over justice and fairness, and where we acknowledging our immorality and wickedness is not "patriotic". Sometimes creative destruction of a corrupt system is required to shut it down.

 

[deltau922]

To say I wouldn't resort to violent protest is what I would call an untested virtue. I don't know whether I would or wouldn't but I understand.

 

[Rachel D.]

Protests that do not disrupt are probably useless and ineffective. Read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail....if you are more committed to law and order than justice, than you are part of the problem. If you value property over the rights of your fellow humans, you are part of the problem.

If you destroy or harm the property of innocent people, or the people themselves, who are trying to go about their lives, then you are creating a problem and committing a crime; you are violating the rights of someone else. I have no sympathy for anyone who behaves that way, I don't care what the issue is. If I got angry about a wrong done to me and smashed a store window or a car, I would be arrested. Protestors aren't any different and shouldn't be excused for doing those things.

 

[coolian2]

 

[kabigon]

This thread needs more eyeroll gifs

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

So the protests were largely peaceful and the cancellation over safety wasn't because "ehrmagerd bleck peeples ar ungree und day mite hert bohno fanz" but because the police presence that is a normal part of an event as large as a concert like U2 or even Ed Sheeran had to be allocated elsewhere.

 

[holyyjoe]

We were traveling in an Uber and the driver told us she drove from techs for the concert to the airport and they weren't annoyed it was cancelled cause for some reason their schedule was pretty squeezed fitting in St. Louis and Phoenix. Strange

 

[Nick66]

Sadly it takes a only handful committed to violence to ruin and taint the efforts of peaceful protesters. It's a pity U2 had to cancel their show as police were needed elsewhere to deal with that resulting chaos, but hopefully all heeded their message echoing the words of Dr. King that when it comes to civil disobedience, non-violence is the answer.

So say we all.

 

[Dfit00]

I've always heard that St. Louis is a very dangerous city with lots of racial tension and heavy segregation. No wonder it is a such a cheap place to live?

It was a good decision that U2 cancelled the show since the theme of the tour doesn't really match the current setting at the city, of course it is a pity that the fans going to the show got notified on the same day.

 

[Jeannieco]

Sadly it takes a only handful committed to violence to ruin and taint the efforts of peaceful protesters. It's a pity U2 had to cancel their show as police were needed elsewhere to deal with that resulting chaos, but hopefully all heeded their message echoing the words of Dr. King that when it comes to civil disobedience, non-violence is the answer.

So say we all.

Amen to this.

 

[Axver]

I've always heard that St. Louis is a very dangerous city with lots of racial tension and heavy segregation. No wonder it is a such a cheap place to live?

It was a good decision that U2 cancelled the show since the theme of the tour doesn't really match the current setting at the city, of course it is a pity that the fans going to the show got notified on the same day.

Maybe try going there before mouthing off?

I felt safer wandering around St Louis than around some other North American cities earlier this year. Locals told me some areas were a bit dodgy - I think they mentioned some northern suburbs - but the central city and inner suburban areas I walked around/took the train to were fine.

East St Louis, across the Mississippi in Illinois, is a real eye-opener into urban decay and a downtrodden population.

 

[holyyjoe]

After spending almost a week there we felt safe in many of the neighbourhoods we visited even with the protests going on

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I've always heard that St. Louis is a very dangerous city with lots of racial tension and heavy segregation. No wonder it is a such a cheap place to live?

It was a good decision that U2 cancelled the show since the theme of the tour doesn't really match the current setting at the city, of course it is a pity that the fans going to the show got notified on the same day.

Let's see

An exploration of the good and bad sides of America?

Asking those who are fortunate enough to be able to afford a rock show to think about those who are not?

A call for unity in a time of divisiveness?

Yea you're right... this show wouldn't fit the theme of what's going on in St Louis at all.

Wait, what's that Jimmy? It might be the prefer place in this country at this time to have it? Huh. Well what do ya know.

 

[Nick66]

I've always heard that St. Louis is a very dangerous city with lots of racial tension and heavy segregation. No wonder it is a such a cheap place to live?

It was a good decision that U2 cancelled the show since the theme of the tour doesn't really match the current setting at the city, of course it is a pity that the fans going to the show got notified on the same day.

This is sort of an odd comment. There's nothing wrong with St. Louis, it's a fantastic American city with a rich history.

Yeah, parts of it are segregated. Parts of most major American cities are segregated. And?

As far as it being "dangerous", you're right that it's one of the most dangerous American cities, at least according to the FBI. But how dangerous it is, like most cities, depends largely on who you are and where you go. I'm fairly sure you'd be fine.

Finally, I'm not sure we listen to the same U2 if you think the "theme" of this show is somehow inconsistent with St. Louis. Many of the songs from this period were inspired by that part of the country. Listen to Heartland.

 

[Dfit00]

I was mostly referring to the theme of the tour with eradication of hate, inclusion of love, peacefulness, etc. that doesn't match the protests, rioting and chaos that was happening in the city.

It's like having a peace concert in the middle of a warzone.

 

[holyyjoe]

I understand the need for them to have cancelled the event due to the uncertainty of what might have transpired but the truth is that there was a lot of peaceful protesting and very little rioting and chaos. Comparing it to a war zone is way over the top

 

[The_acrobat]

I just wonder why this show couldn't have been rescheduled? Come back after San Diego, like on the 25th or 26th, and still have a week to get everything to Mexico. Stadium availability is not an issue, because that stadium has no football team! I'm sure there is a logistical reason, because typically U2 will always reschedule shows.

 

[kabigon]

Maybe they set aside time to "finish" SOE