Speaking of prominent white activist intellectuals, here's Chomsky's view on Einstein: "Compare Russell and Einstein, two leading figures, roughly the same generation. They agreed on the grave dangers facing humanity, but chose different ways to respond. Einstein responded by living a very comfortable life in Princeton and dedicating himself to research that he loved, taking a few moments for an occasional oracular statement. Russell responded by leading demonstrations and getting himself dragged off by the cops, writing extensively on the problems of the day, organizing war crimes trials, etc. The result? Russell was and is reviled and condemned, Einstein is admired as a saint. Should that surprise us? Not at all."

You do realize Einstein was a Jew who was forced to leave Germany because of Nazism, right?

"Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits." [0]

But more importantly, they are an ethnoreligious group, defined by shared ethnicity and religion. [1]

So, not all Jews are Jews, and not all Jews are Jews. But the classification is not always religious.

[0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group

You choose whether to follow an evil religion.

You can't choose what colour of skin you are born with or the facial bone structure. You /can/ change those things later but it is expensive, requires surgery or bad chemicals and is really unpleasant.

Discriminating against religions is a completely different (and much more defensible) matter than discriminating against "race" or ethnicity.

Well, by the John Birchers and the like, but he also won the Nobel (in literature, of all things) and was quite influential among people who would not have understood the Principia Mathematica. I think Chomsky is way off base here.

Einstein isn't admired because he chose a life of research... he's admired because of his research. Russel is also incredibly admired, then and now.

Hence, why this seems hypocritical: Chomsky made his trade-off, and continues to enjoy a comfortable professor's life. I think it's fair to say that Chomsky has done far more political activism in his life than Einstein, but far less than Russell.

But when I read recent reports about arson, looting, windows smashed, trash cans overturned and lit on fire, businesses destroyed, police officers assaulted with rocks, explosives and firebombs, millions of damages caused, when I read about "burn that bitch down" - I think maybe this particular instance is not what I want to be part of at all. Maybe associating with this wouldn't do as much to combat either public perception of police needing to be tough or any particular prejudices.

And then I read something like this: http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/a-college-president-had-to... and this https://twitter.com/onekade/status/543202210516303872/photo/... and honestly, I don't know what to think.

If you really were deeply concerned about police brutality and its disproportionate application against black people, then you would wholly understand that and outburst of anger and violence is a likely reaction when people are pushed to their limit.

The current wave of protests are not those riots, they are organized action to protest this reality. Moreover, your approval means nothing while those lives are still destroyed and dominated by unjust systems and institutions.

>>> The current wave of protests are not those riots

This was this monday: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/08/violence-erupts-at-berk...

I have doubts the same people have changed in a week and would be completely benign now.

>>> Moreover, your approval means nothing while those lives are still destroyed and dominated by unjust systems and institutions.

It is true, that my approval means nothing to them. I'm just explaining why myself - and I suspect, many others - while supporting the overall goal of lowering police brutality - and actually having been supporting it way before current events - would not take part in these protests, as the top comment suggested. I think it is still relevant to the discussion.

>>> while those lives are still destroyed and dominated by unjust systems and institutions.

If you want to convince the silent majority the police is going too far and ends up hurting innocent people (or hurting not-so-innocent people way more than it is acceptable), making their TV show them pictures of fires, destruction and general mayhem may be not the most effective way to achieve it.

First, it's not like there has been widespread looting and chaos at these marches. Yes, there has been some, for sure, but the vast vast majority of these protests and protestors are peaceful. It only takes one person to break windows and light fires.

Second, even if there is looting and destruction it's generally not a rational thought process that leads people to it. These are angry, hopeless, beat down, etc people who feel like they never get any justice.

I don't condone the violence, but I certainly understand it.

I'm not sure which exactly "these". I've heard a real lot of reports about the mayhem recently. Maybe if you count the number of perpetrators and divide it by the number of participants in all events everywhere, the result comes out low, I don't know. But I see how much damage was done[1], and I think there is enough of them to spoil it.

>>> It only takes one person to break windows and light fires.

Unfortunately, the size of the rioting and destruction does not look like it's done by "one person" or even negligible number of persons. If it would be so, they would be easily stopped by the people around them, or by the police with the help of the former. I've seen peaceful demonstrations, and I've seen riots (the latter, fortunately, only in recording) and there's a difference that can be seen.

>>> even if there is looting and destruction it's generally not a rational thought process that leads people to it.

I appreciate it. But since I am lucky enough to still possess the capability of rational thought and not be in a situation where I no longer have this luxury - maybe I should use it and ask myself "is this the best way?"And maybe call others who also have not abandoned the rational thought to do the same.

>>> I don't condone the violence, but I certainly understand it.

"Understand" is such a pliable word. Do I understand why some people may strap explosives to their bodies and explode them in the middle of a crowded market? Yes, I do, I am not stupid and there are tons of literature written on various ways of propaganda, brainwashing, misery, hopelessness and suffering. I can intellectually follow it without excusing the heinous actions in any way. And yet, when I read "I can understand it", it still somehow has a smell of excusing it to some measure. Is my perception wrong here? Same with rioting - I can follow the genesis of what happened, intellectually, but I can not see how what is happening is in any way makes it any better and do not think it should be excused.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/im-l...

As to the rest...I just can't get worked up over some broken windows and stolen beer (again, bay area) when people are being killed in the streets and nothing is being done. Intellectually I know it hurts some small businesses, and is a pain to deal with, and the helicopters keep me up at night, etc., but it's really hard to compare that to the situation with black, brown, and poor america.

When you are disproportionately targeted by police for everything under the sun, the state takes your young males (some studies suggest 1 in 3 black men are arrested in their life), the state doesn't provide basic services or support, doesn't care about your education, there are no jobs and very little hope, and then on top of that the police are gunning down "your people" in the streets with no consequences what-so-ever...breaking windows just doesn't move the needle for me at all. Something needs to happen to address the situation and the status quo hasn't helped at all. Maybe some rabble rousing will make something happen. Or not. But at least these people are trying to do /something/!

Listen, I'm privileged whitey mcwhiterson software engineer. I live in Oakland. I see a lot of this in my community, though I don't claim to have any understanding of the personal impact being in that situation is. But it's undeniable that we've left an entire generation (or two, or three) of the black community behind and it pisses me off that we as society just don't seem to care. Good for them, and their allies, for getting up off the couch.

That's a fallacious logic. From this logic it follows that as long as there are bad crimes, any lesser crimes are OK. Breaking windows and stealing beer is not helping to make the police (or anything else) better - if anything, it proves to the silent majority that the police is not harsh enough - evidently, as soon as it turns the other way, there's window breaking and beer stealing going on. So it only goes to prove that the police should put the boot down for those window breakers and beer stealers. To counter this argument, it should be shown that window breaking and beer stealing does not represent the normal behavior and is not what the protest is about. And to make that clear, yes, you should "get worked up" about it, otherwise people who don't know you would assume you do consider it to be OK, and make their conclusions. And you may not like them at all.

>>> but it's really hard to compare that to the situation with black, brown, and poor america.

First of all, most of the people hurt are black, brown and (relatively) poor America. The rioters don't go to riot in Beverley Hills and don't trash Larry Ellison's private island. They riot next door to where they live and trash and set on fire the local grocery store. Which is owned by their neighbor who is only marginally richer than they are, who worked his ass off his whole life to become that and who is now broke and needs to figure out how the hell he's going to pay his bills next month. But second - what exactly that trashing and burning does to make the situation better (I don't consider couple of looters getting drunk for free a real improvement)? Exactly nothing except now they don't have a local grocery store (so also guys who worked there are out of work. Also not exactly billionaires they were, right?).

>> Maybe some rabble rousing will make something happen

Or maybe it would convince the other people that the problem is not that the police is too harsh but that it is not harsh enough. I've heard the questions about "why National Guard was not deployed immediately" all over the TV and radio as soon as the riots hit the streets. National Guard, as you know, is basically military. So people start asking why the government is not setting the military - with tanks, fighter jets and other power tools - on their citizens, because the police with mere handguns, shotguns and armored cars looks too weak for them. Is that what rabble rousing was supposed to achieve? If so, good job then. If not, well, not so good job.

>>> we've left an entire generation (or two, or three) of the black community behind and it pisses me off that we as society just don't seem to care.

The society cares a lot - just turn on the TV and listen to any politician, they talk day and night about it for the last 50 years. Has it helped? Not really, as it looks. Does trashing and burning help? Not likely. So maybe it's time to do something that does help instead. And for that, some though is required as to what would help, instead of just breaking windows and stealing beer. Stealing beer is easy, but would not solve the problem, unfortunately.

It's really an interesting phenomenon. Most people believe truth is relative though, so I guess it's not logically surprising that there is no consensus.

Can somebody (preferably a downvoter) explain it to me?