• Does systemic racism exist in the US?
    Baden, if I had no one disagreeing with me I could easily prove it doesn’t exist. — Brett

    You mean you would easily believe right wing propaganda.

    Baden, you just proved me right. — Brett

    This is just delusional.

    OP based on an accepted premise happen all the time.

    You're not making a new OP outlining your claim racism isn't systematic because there's no case to be made.

    You are simply trying to derail this conversation because obvious truths threaten your identity and you believe power should be enough to determine what the truth is. So you want to flex your trollish power here to frustrate good faith analysis and virtue signal to your cause. Maybe my diagnosis of your fascist psychology is off topic, but I'm glad you don't have a problem with that.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?

    We are not responsible, for the mental illness that has been afflicted upon our people by the American government, institutions, and those people in positions of power.

    I don't give a damn if they burn down Target, because Target should be on the streets with us, calling for the Justice that our people deserve.

    Where was Autozone at the time when Fernando Castillo was shot in a car, which is what they actually represent. Where were they?

    So if you are not coming to the people's defense, then don't challenge us when young people and other people who are frustrated are instigated by the people you pay. You are paying instigators to be amoung our people out there, throwing rocks, breaking windows and burning down buildings. So young people are responding to that, they are in rage. And there is an easy way to stop it.

    Arrest the cops.

    Charge the cops.

    Charge all the cops.

    Not just some of them, not just here in Minneapolis, charge them in every city across America where our people are being murdered. Charge them everywhere.

    That's the bottom line.

    Charge the cops. Do your jobs. Do what you say this country is supposed to be about, the land of the free for all. It has not been free for black people, and we are tired.

    Don't talk to us about looting. Y'all are the looters. America has been looting black people. America looted the native americans when they first came here, so looting is what you do. We learned it from you. We learned violence from you.

    We learned violence from you.

    The violence is what we learned from you.

    So if you want us to do better, then damn it, you do better.     — Tamika Mallory, Minneapolis
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    If you think police brutality is something for black people only... — EpicTyrant

    You are completely correct that it is better to first consider that there is much more pervasive and severe systemic police brutality against the poor (the untermensch) and that within this system of systemic police brutality there is an additional and even more brutal system for black people and in particular the black poor (the double untermensch). A rich black man in a suite is treated similarly to a poor "white punk", still harassed but not over a line that might bring in the rich black man's lawyers or then the white punk's parents lawyers to make trouble.

    There is, beyond race, an even more deeply rooted unequal application of the law in terms of rich and poor. The rich are not prosecuted for their crimes no matter how heinous, as the Epstein network of elite child rapists demonstrates.

    For poor people more generally, police brutality is only one component of a wider justice system brutality. Whereas the brutality against black people can be simply spontaneous, against poor people more generally the brutality is dished out after bankruptcy, after repossessions, after eviction, after losing it, after "justice"; after, albeit more lenient, still incredibly harsh drug or thievery sentencing in the same traumatic and inhumane prisons. The police officer is only one cog in a much larger brutal machine. And indeed, for black people it is the same, a justice brutality involving many more intellectual jobs and not merely a police brutality, there is simply an additional brutal component that is most visible in direct physical abuse and killings by the police and easier to understand (but as you point out, not uniquely reserved for this class of untermensch).

    In my opinion, the riots are very much expressing outrage of all poor people, and their few middle-class allies, at the whole system on behalf of blacks and equally themselves. However, because blacks "have it worse", because the particular outrageous killing of George Floyd, and because exactly how the system is unjust to whites cannot be so easily interpreted by the average poor person, as the middle class whites continuously tell them it's their fault for being poor and police are just "doing their job", whereas, the blacks have literally centuries of analysis to understand racism, but the traditions that built up understanding of poverty more generally, anarchy and socialism, were wholly eradicated; black identity preserved this understanding, transposed into a black context, because, for black people, it is impossible to ignore and forget for even a single day. The white poor, by standing and fighting with their black brothers and sisters, are also standing and fighting for themselves. Because there are no real intellectual leaders of the poor nor the black community today, because such people have simply been murdered, what I describe is not an intellectual thing, but an intuitive one, a gut feeling of, in effect, "Fuck the Police" and an application of the simplest and most direct means available of expressing such a feeling. Within such a context, an intellectual approach to morality is no longer really applicable. The facts of history are unfolding and it serves no purpose to tell leaderless people they should have "a more morally perfect strategy of change".

    The only morally certain thing we can say is "If the soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."

    "No Justice, No Peace" expresses the simple and unavoidable consequence of educated elites breaking the social contract in such obvious ways that even the uneducated poor can see through their crimes and their bullshit. It is not a peaceful slogan inline with the educated elites' conception of the law and of order.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Great quote. I often point out in race-and-poverty-related discussions that point about addressing poverty regardless of race being sufficient to counteract the racism left after explicit legally enshrined racism is eliminated, and often people attack that idea as itself racist faux race-blindness. — Pfhorrest

    Yes, I pretty much agree that had universal health care been passed decades ago (or even just one decade ago), equal (at least more equal) education been implemented, and homelessness been solved, that the US would not be in this current situation.

    It’s heartening to see that MLK himself had things very much along those lines to say too. — Pfhorrest

    Yes, he was killed essentially the moment he started to address white poverty, which for him would be his new allies going forward, as they are the whites that have as much to gain from ending poverty, but, if successful, would "cost billions". He was fully cognizant that rich white people were only allies during the legal phase which doesn't cost anything and because having to see police brutality "shocks the educated conscience", whereas poor whites would view desegregation (at first) as somehow "taking from them something"; but that in the second phase the rich would abandon them and they would need to grow the movement to solve poverty regardless of race by organizing the poor.

    I am fully convinced that had MLK and others, including white civil right leaders such as Bobby Kennedy, not been killed, the US today would be "a normal country" by the standards of the democratic world.

    However, by killing all the leaders, such organization MLK had in mind was no longer possible.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    The class-race connection StreetlightX highlights has the interesting implication that a lot of structural racism can be fixed without explicitly addressing race at all. If you help all poor people equally regardless of race, you disproportionately help black people automatically because the poor are disproportionately black. — Pfhorrest

    I am convinced that segregation is as dead as a doornail in its legal sense, and the only thing uncertain about it now is how costly some of the segregationists who still linger around will make the funeral. And so there has been progress. But we must not allow this progress to cause us to engage in a superficial, dangerous optimism.

    [...]

    It is now a struggle for genuine equality on all levels, and this will be a much more difficult struggle. You see, the gains in the first period, or the first era of struggle, were obtained from the power structure at bargain rates; it didn’t cost the nation anything to integrate lunch counters. It didn’t cost the nation anything to integrate hotels and motels. It didn’t cost the nation a penny to guarantee the right to vote. Now we are in a period where it will cost the nation billions of dollars to get rid of poverty, to get rid of slums, to make quality integrated education a reality. This is where we are now. Now we’re going to lose some friends in this period. The allies who were with us in Selma will not all stay with us during this period. We’ve got to understand what is happening. Now they often call this the white backlash … It’s just a new name for an old phenomenon. The fact is that there has never been any single, solid, determined commitment on the part of the vast majority of white Americans to genuine equality for Negroes. There has always been ambivalence … In 1863 the Negro was granted freedom from physical slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was not given land to make that freedom meaningful. At the same time, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the Midwest and the West, which meant that the nation was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor, while refusing to do it for its black peasants from Africa who were held in slavery two hundred and forty four years. And this is why Frederick Douglass would say that emancipation for the Negro was freedom to hunger, freedom to the winds and rains of heaven, freedom without roofs to cover their heads.

    [...]

    The second evil that I want to deal with is the evil of poverty. Like a monstrous octopus it spreads its nagging prehensile tentacles into cities and hamlets and villages all over our nation. Some forty million of our brothers and sisters are poverty stricken, unable to gain the basic necessities of life. And so often we allow them to become invisible because our society’s so affluent that we don’t see the poor. Some of them are Mexican Americans. Some of them are Indians. Some are Puerto Ricans. Some are Appalachian whites. The vast majority are Negroes in proportion to their size in the population … Now there is nothing new about poverty. It’s been with us for years and centuries. What is new at this point though, is that we now have the resources, we now have the skills, we now have the techniques to get rid of poverty. And the question is whether our nation has the will …

    Now I want to deal with the third evil that constitutes the dilemma of our nation and the world. And that is the evil of war. Somehow these three evils are tied together. The triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. The great problem and the great challenge facing mankind today is to get rid of war … We have left ourselves as a nation morally and politically isolated in the world. We have greatly strengthened the forces of reaction in America, and excited violence and hatred among our own people. We have diverted attention from civil rights. During a period of war, when a nation becomes obsessed with the guns of war, social programs inevitably suffer. People become insensitive to pain and agony in their own midst …     — Martin Luther King, speech May 10, 1967
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    A common sense reply, that also tells Trump is going to have a new secretary of defence again, if he has the time to fire this one. — ssu

    Spot on. This is what's so historically new, the lack of basic common sense in the POTUS, and more importantly, the full backing of this insanity by the SCOTUS and Republican senate.

    This ain't your 60s civil rights riots, that many are lulling themselves to believe, this is something entirely new (in American history; lot's of precedent in world history, none of which spontaneously "just went back to normal").
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Now, yes, MLK was against violence, in the tactical sense that it can achieve the goal without violence: it is therefore preferable.


    I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do-nothingness" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For htre is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.

    If this philosophy had not emerged, by now streets, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negros will, our of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in back-nationalist ideologies.

    [...]

    If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.     — Martin Luther King, Why We Can't Wait

    The problem with using MLK's legacy to chastise the violence today, is the obvious fact that Martin Luther Kings tactic did not work, otherwise we would not today, 60 years later, be witnessing lynching in the streets.

    The white moderate did not join the black non-violent direct action cause and fix the problem of institutionalized racism, otherwise Trump would not be president.

    Rather, the white moderate has tolerated not only the creation of a new system of oppression for blacks, in some ways worse than before (for the system of prison slavery is arguably worse than the system of segregation), but has tolerated the creation of this system of oppression, due to the absence of segregation, to include their own sons and daughters.

    The violence today that is now "a fact of history" that Martin Luther King warned the white moderates about (before he was killed), is now not only a racial struggle but a inter-generational struggle.

    In tolerating a new and improved cage of poverty for the black man and woman, the boomers and co. were willing to throw their own children into it.

    What we are seeing on the streets is a young generation rallying around the largest and most obvious symbol of generational oppression, systemic racism, in a struggle against an enemy embodied by a 73 year old bumbling, racist fool.

    In killing Martin Luther King and other nonviolent direct action leaders (because they are extremists), there is no one to negotiate with and the whole point of nonviolent direct action is moot in any case.

    The current situation is that the entire younger generation is in "the womb of intolerable conditions and unendurable situations" and without legitimate leaders nor a competent enough elite to fix any problems anyways (even if they wanted to rather than just loot while the looting's good at a safe distance from the comfort of their New Zealand mansion, Mediterranean yacht, or Swiss chalet), the conditions will simply continue to get more intolerable and unendurable, and neither the fierce tactic of nonviolent direct action nor the docile irrelevance of peaceful protest is now helpful nor even doable (due to a lack of widely legitimate leadership): either Trump's state will win or then the people fighting it, and either way the methods of victory will not be signs, flowers and speeches.

    There is no one in the white house willing to "sit down, make a deal" with the mob, there is no one in the mob with whom a deal can be made.

    The fundamental error of the American elites (including the entire Democratic party, who also voted for the CARE Act) is that in a system maintained by bread and circuses, to believe that both the circus and the bread can be taken away simultaneously without the entire system crashing. It was a crazy dream, but history will be very clear: if the circus part is swept away by a pandemic, you betta double time yo ass to double down on the bread part. The CARE act is, in essence, the "let them eat brioche" moment of American political history. The lynching of George Floyd is simply "the spark that will light the fire that will burn the first order down."
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    ↪StreetlightX


    It doesn't stop:


    I must make two confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens' Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

    I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

    In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may provoke violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.     — Martin Luther King--Why We Can't Wait
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Good point about King. However I think non-violent resistance was not limited to civil disobedience, and included peaceful protests. And his dedication to nonviolence is quite explicit. — NOS4A2

    Yes, he is dedicated to non-violence, but only for tactical reasons. He is quite clear he views violent resistance against oppression justifiable; the question being can it work.

    For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

    We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in the airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected titles "Mrs."; when you are harried day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"-- then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged intro the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

    You express great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."     — Martin Luther King -- Why We Can't Wait
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    If Martin Luther king lived today he would be joyful over how far black people have progressed and how much freedom they have been given in society. — EpicTyrant

    I'm really tired of this fantasy of Martin Luther King.

    Martin Luther King did not believe in peaceful protest, and viewed peaceful protest as a degenerate political philosophy meant to appease those too cowardly to challenge the status quo yet who feel too guilty as to do nothing.

    Civil Disobedience is not peaceful protest, but requires a physical confrontation with the police and will always be blamed as "the real violence" by racists and misguided centrists: because disobedience baits the police, disobedience disrupts "essential" economic activity, and disobedience is simply a violent insult to the traditions and institutions of racism; and indeed, it is lived as a fully violence act to the white supremacist and it is that violence which provokes the violence of police that makes civil disobedience effective (in that time), that most whites would be forced to action (in the street and at the ballot box) by their conscience and join blacks in a much more forceful movement than blacks alone.

    The purpose of civil disobedience is based on his belief that most white people were not racist but had a fundamental desire to uphold christian values, that by forcing agents of the state to show their hatred for the black man, woman and child, and willingness (that they cannot help due to their hatred) to beat, kill and slaughter black men, women, and children clearly unprovoked in broad daylight and before the nation (unlike in the shadow of the alley or corner of the prison that can always be claimed to be provoked or otherwise deserved by the victim).

    Furthermore, Martin Luther King is quite clear civil disobedience is only a tactical consideration and that he is, fundamentally, unified with and supports violent tactics also.

    In the bursting mood that has overtaken the Negro in 1963, the word "compromise" is profane and pernicious. The majority of Negro leadership is innately opposed to compromise. Even were this not true, no Negro leader today could divert the direction of the movement or its compelling and inspired forward motion.

    Many of our white brothers misunderstand this fact because many of them fail to interpret correctly the nature of the Negro Revolution. Some believe that it is the work of skilled agitators who have the power to raise or lower the floodgates at will. Such a movement, maneuvered by a talented few, would not be a genuine revolution. This Revolution is genuine because it was born from the same womb that always gives birth to massive social upheavals--the womb of intolerable conditions and unendurable situations. In this time and circumstance, no leader or set of leaders could have acted as ringmasters, whipping a whole race out of purring contentment into leonine courage and action. If such credit is to be given to any single group, it might well go to the segregationists, who, with their callous and cynical code, helped to arouse and ignite the righteous wrath of the Negro.

    [...]

    It was the people who moved their leaders, not the leaders who moved the people. Of course, there were generals, as there must be in every army. But the command post was in the bursting hearts of millions of Negroes. When such a people begin to move, they create their own theories, shape their own destinies, and choose the leaders who share their own philosophy. A leader who understands this kind of mandate knows that he must be sensitive to the anger, the impatience, the frustration, the resolution that have been loosed in his people. Any leader who tries to bottle up these emotions is sure to be blown asunder in the ensuing explosion.

    [...]

    The hard truth is that the unity of the movement is a remarkable feature of major importance. The fact that different organizations place varying degrees of emphasis on certain tactical approaches is not indicative of disunity.

    [...]

    only one answer can come from the depths of the Negro's being. That answer can be summarized in the hallowed American words: "If this be treason, make the most of it."
     — Martin Luther King -- Why We Can't Wait
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    I don't live in america so i can't look from a white persons perspective there. — EpicTyrant

    So why can you look from a black person's perspective there?
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Black people in low class society should rise up against themselves and really show the world that they're ready to make a change and be left out of the typical "afro american" stereotype that you see in movies, that would be beautiful and remarkable human feat to see. — EpicTyrant

    Should white people in the US rise up against themselves and really show the world they are ready to make a change and be left out of typical "white privilege" stereotype that you see on real footage of the real world? Would that be a remarkable human feat to see? If so, what would it look like to you?
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    But why would Trump ever do that? — Marchesk

    Aie, there's the rub.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    With so many instances of being able to (re)consider his actions during those 8 minutes and 46 seconds and the possibility of asking for help from fellow officers or moving Floyd to the car, the continued stranglehold using his knees became premeditated during the course of those 8 minutes and 46 seconds. — Benkei

    I have also been reflecting on what we are actually seeing.

    Though your reasoning I think is completely adequate to establish first degree murder, it is an unsatisfactory explanation on the whole.

    What I mean by that is that if we conclude we are seeing a premeditated murder, it seems completely implausible for such a desire to be formulated spontaneously. Though such a hypothesis maybe true, it is the least psychologically plausible.

    If we entertain the hypothesis that the murder was planned before arrival on the scene, both the will to murder and the complicity of the other police, the events make much more sense. The accomplices are there to ensure the murder takes place without interference from bystanders nor other officers, not part of the conspiracy, that may arrive by accident (off-duty, other law enforcement agencies, other responders etc.).

    The evidence for this is exactly consistent with what you describe in that there is otherwise no explanations for the actions we are seeing. It explains why there is no other plan pursued other than to wait for an ambulance, and explains why the suffocation was carried out for minutes after the victim is unresponsive (which is obvious to witnesses and can only be more obvious to someone in intimate contact with the victim).

    We know that the victim and the murderer knew each other over an extended period of time.

    However, in formulating this more plausible theory of why cold and deliberate actions would be carried out to murder George Floyd, there are further questions.

    Although we have evidence that point towards a conspiracy by police officers involved, we do not have good evidence that the conspiracy was somehow contained to these officers to resolve a private dispute or retribution with George Floyd. The fact that the murder is carried out in daylight in front of witnesses and video and the fact that the "covering for" the murderers is institutionally pervasive (from the prosecutor, the judges, the coroner, without any meaningful intervention by higher levels of the judiciary or law enforcement), leads to the only intellectually satisfactory conclusion: that if we are witnessing a plan and not some bizarre series of coincidences, that the conspiracy involves the key elements of the justice system to ensure the murders are treated as lightly as possible, and therefore key elements of the justice system are also involved in the crime.

    Since George Floyd has no institutional relevance (and again, if he did have some specific institutional relevance there are better ways to murder a specific person), the only motivation available of a larger conspiracy is to carry out a murder for the purposes of starting a race war.

    If we entertain this possibility we notice an immediate congruency with several facts of the case that otherwise seem benign. First, the crime George Floyd is accused of is of using counterfeit currency: A crime easy to setup (just give him a counterfeit bill, or then give the shop owner the counterfeit, or just never have any counterfeit and just tell the shop owner to make such a call) and so it is entirely compatible with plan to setup the situation in which the murder can take place (if we had actual proof of George Floyd engaging in a crime or altercation under his own direction, it is of course then much more implausible that anyone could engineer that to happen or then design a plan predicated on the mere possibility that George Floyd "might" get himself involved with police; rather, if there is a setup it must therefore be for a crime that cannot, at the end of the day, be proved to have actually happened), but, furthermore, the nature of the crime renders it the jurisdiction of the secret service (who could take steps to guarantee the circumstances of the originating event would not be investigated), whom, within the span of three years, we may reasonably assume the President has selected, at least for his immediate entourage, the most fanatical, loyal and devoted members willing to carry out illegal actions if they are either ordered to or then come to the spontaneous conclusion themselves of what sorts of national events may play favorably to the reelection, or continued power by other means, of their employer. If such an enterprise was embarked upon, whether spontaneously or by some direction (or then the perception of an order that could also be categorized as incomprehensible speech although communicates a fundamental feeling and desire), we can reasonably assume that secret service members would have connections within the law enforcement community in which to identify the people and the department that could be entrusted with the task, the kinds of people required and the institutional setting within which they could know the legal consequences to themselves would be as minimal as possible (and, in any case, would be worthwhile for the good of the white race).

    For, otherwise, it is simply bizarre that a 20 dollar note would motivate a murderer and several accomplices to murder in broad daylight (why would they decide to spontaneously kill, or then stand idly by, this particular black man for this particular crime), but for purposes of jurisdiction management within a wider law enforcement conspiracy it is entirely reasonable and fully consistent with such actions.

    The presence of the counterfeit bill in the events places what we are seeing in 2 degree separation to the President and other white house officials.

    Such a theory, though more evidence would be needed to prove it, satisfactorily establishes the motivation and the institutional means to explain the crime and transparently obvious cover up as it appears to us. George Floyd may have therefore been selected because of his heart condition as I posit in a previous post, and the exact plan of the murder designed to ensure that there is a strategy to minimize or avoid the consequences while also ensuring it is an obvious murder carried out in broad daylight with multiple camera angles that would be more than sufficient to insight violent and sustained protest.

    If there were other motivations, private to the murders, to kill George Floyd, it seems unreasonable that they would decide to carry out the murder in broad daylight without even attempting to provoke some chaotic series of events difficult to or impossible to interpret clearly.

    We know the President has the desire and the motivation to implement martial law, and we can reasonably surmise the secret police have both the intellectual and covert means to organize a crime convenient for the purposes.

    Furthermore, as the protests unfolded (which is completely reasonable to assume in the formulation of such a plot) we have evidence (though again not proof) of police or otherwise intelligence or professional agent provocateurs that started the initial violence as well as completely unreasonable delay in any political actions that might calm the protesters (therefore, we have evidence that response to the crisis was already organized in such a way as to ensure a descent into the violence necessary for a race war for the purposes of rallying the white supremacy base as well as put soldiers in the streets as a necessary step towards suspending civilian rule).

    I am of course open to analyse other theories, including that the will to murder was entirely spontaneous, however, given the wider context of: failed policies with regard to the pandemic and economic survival of ordinary people, the rise of organized white supremacist groups infiltrating law enforcement (which @StreetlightX points out is admitted to by the FBI and US Marshals), the prospect of electoral loss, it is not outside the bounds of reasonable historical analysis to consider the possibility of a Reichstag type event (knowing full well the truth of such events may never fully come to light). The purposes of considering such a possibility being that there maybe non-corrupt elements of law enforcement that may have the means to prove or disprove it and to do something meaningful with the information if it is the case, before it is too late to do so.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    So what is so different in: Norway, Netherlands,
    Finland.     — ssu

    The difference is that political protest as a means to effect political process is viable. Laws can be changed through political action, which may or may not include protest.

    You have pictures of police dealing with protesters.

    You don't have pictures and video of Nordic police murdering people in the streets, drive by pepper spraying protesters, running them over with police vans, shooting people on their porch, arresting and shooting at journalists.

    People protesting in Nordic countries know they won't be killed and they're message will be seriously considered by politicians and the public in general, the state can be negotiated with effectively (union strikes), and elections can be affected by the protests.

    Sure, Nordic countries aren't perfect and you can find flaws, crimes, racists and police managing protests as best they can, but the idea that Nordic states aren't viewed as a result of legitimate political process by the large majority of people that live in them is silly.

    True, lot's of reasons to protest about, but the difference with the situation in the US is that there's genuine elections to look forward to; protest and civil disobedience are an effective tool of communication in a legitimate state and genuine democratic process. Protest and civil disobedience are not effective tools of political power. If the dialogue breaks down, only power remains.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    I think it's very difficult to assess the value of the rioting if what followed was organised armed violence, i.e. war. Unless we're in a position where we intend to follow the rioting up with outright war, if necessary, the example has a flaw. — Echarmion

    I completely agree it is very difficult to assess.

    Definitely most riots throughout most of history were mostly irrelevant in terms of political change.

    But most means not all, so the question is if this is in the "few exceptions category". Certainly the case can plausibly be made.

    However, viewed as a political tool (which most rioters won't likely have any clear idea of, other than the intuitive expression of rejection of state legitimacy and "things be like this now"), the purpose of rioting is for the legitimate components of the state to overthrow the illegitimate components and leadership. The situation in the US is not a colonial occupation that would, as you suggest, require the organized armed violence followup. The "riot bet" is that agents of the state will be unwilling to fire on their own people at a scale large enough to restore order (the only surefire way to regain control once riots are at this scale); which is of course not an issue in
    a foreign occupation context. If there's no political solution in sight, then the "good cops / soldiers" turn on their superiors rather than follow orders to shoot their fellow citizens (if things go well of course, and the revolution succeeds). This is the template of an effective riot based political change and there are lot's of historical examples of exactly this playing out.

    Of course, that's not the only potential outcome.

    A political solution is possible, or then the military and police could effectively end the riots through sustained mass arrests in a way that "good cops and soldiers" can live with (the status quo is maintained; not "enough" shots needed to be fired), or then a tyrannical government emerges with agents willing to "do what it takes" to maintain control.

    These "good cops and soldiers" are, in an illegitimate state, carefully selected to be noble and competent enough to find murderers of the privileged class, protect property with their lives and track down thieves, and to carry out wars with discipline and courage ... but not have so much nobleness and competence as to be a "trouble maker" willing to make a principled stand (why oligarchs would say "well, I don't like Trump, but he has no principles! He's not so bad, we can deal with him" whereas Bernie was truly "unacceptable"). History shows that sometimes these "goodish" agents of the state act to reestablish plausible state legitimacy when it is clear their entire identity is not plausible without it, and the state is not plausibly legitimate. Sometimes they don't and after they are sufficiently purged and/or managed just go "oh, phooey, now things are even worse; I liked the old democracy days". In terms of political strategy of rioting, the hope is that riots get large enough to force political leaders to order the shooting of citizens, and in that moment "good state agents" stage an effective coup.

    Definitely not a guaranteed outcome, but that's the idea.

    I dwell on this option to make clear what the political idea behind rioting would be from a historical perspective, as a counterpoint to the idea rioting "cannot be effective".

    The other options, political solutions, tyranny, botched coups, status quo maintained despite sustained civil unrest over a long duration (the riots don't get "big enough" but never really go away, transitioning to de facto gang rule in many areas, as we see in Mexican), can all be analysed as well.

    Only "political solution" lacks an obvious meaning of what that would look like.

    The current situation is bad, in particular, because the only leader with widespread legitimacy to (at least not be corrupt) is Bernie Sanders, but the Democratic party not only defeated him but made him bend then knee in a humiliating way that essentially disposed of his legitimacy (why no one cares what Bernie is saying about the situation today). However, "unhumiliating" Bernie (which would require making him the Democratic leader) would be the first easiest step to some sort of effective dialogue to reach a political solution. The police state and white supremacists have maintained a policy (whether centrally planned or just intuitively executed) of simply killing black, union and socialist leaders; the problem with this policy is that when people are pushed to the brink there's no leadership (people adapt by creating leaderless movements) with widespread legitimacy that can negotiate a settlement with the state. We can verify this to be the case in that there simply is no person we can name who could go to the white house and talk on behalf of the black and poor communities that anyone would give a damn about (Oprah? Will Smith? Obamas? Snoop Dog?). There is no MLK today that can intermediate between the oppressor and the oppressed. Bernie is, in my view, the closest to a legitimate representative that has widespread legitimacy (a big maybe though), and complete enough understanding of politics, although pathetically naive in implementation, to "achieve" something politically (if the state was willing to negotiate ... which is equally unlikely). So, it's very unclear what politically could happen that's relevant, partly because the Democrats already threw Bernie under the bus not realizing he is the useful idiot smart enough to be useful in the situation; that as problems get worse one needs smarter useful idiots to deal with them (i.e. Bernie is the idiot America needs, rather than the idiot America deserves, which is Trump), and it's equally unclear that even if Bernie or someone "crafted demands to end systemic racism " that Trump would agree to them; so, no one's even talking about some sort of political process at the moment other than "vote for Biden in November".
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    No, because a lot of people will die, regardless of the outcome. — Marchesk

    The same can be said for most creation events of legitimate government.

    A lot of people died so that I enjoy freedoms in my country today; a lot of people died defending the freedoms you enjoy today. It is simply hypocritical to tell non-free people "the historical time of winning freedom has past, if you didn't win it then don't try it now, it is now the time of politeness and freedom is taking no further orders".

    Either explain to them they are free or explain how more effective ways exist to gain their freedom. To point out people die in the game of politics so you shouldn't play is simply patronizing.

    Do you hold the same opinion about the US military? Any war to accomplish a political objective will result in a process where "a lot of people will die, regardless of the outcome" therefore there shouldn't be a US military, and all US soldiers are criminal thugs?

    The privileged saying "say no violence" at only the moment they need to actually contemplate that privilege being taken away, is not simply an empty platitude but completely absurd line of reasoning if one benefits from, much less promotes, the right of state violence. At least say "I like the current violence situation the way it is"; there's no use pretending there's some pacifist belief about all violence; it's just silly if you have no track record of radical pacifism.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Fighting a literal war of secession is a patently absurd suggestion. — Echarmion

    The question was "when has rioting ever been effective?" Plenty examples throughout history of rioting achieving a political goal. Of course, the goal can change; that rioting was effective part of fighting a literal war of secession against the British today does not mean that fighting a war of secession against the British is the only available purpose of rioting.

    I am not saying they must be condemned because they are violent. I am saying they are likely to be ineffective. Waxing poetically about their "right to be angry" doesn't change the facts on the ground. — Echarmion

    I'm not arguing against this point; you maybe right that rioting is not effective. Perhaps nothing can be effective, or perhaps there's more effective options available. I am open to hear answers to "well, what would change things?" as many are open, including national news broadcasters.

    But, insofar as there's riots now, we will see how the "facts on the ground" develop.

    The argument that rioting will provoke a military coup of one form or another (as generally happens in third world countries in this sort of situation), is that this time there is a pandemic and a great depression and, as I argue in the other thread, serious risk of hyper inflation. There's also a federal government unable to fix any problem at all, but makes all problems worse; so, all these things will get more unstable, not less unstable.

    People will not only riot because they are fedup with double standards of justice, but because they are hungry, because they are homeless, because they are bankrupt, because they have no visible future ("that the child who is not warmed by the village will burn it down to feel the warmth of the fire"); and centrists clutching their pearls today, aghast and disoriented by the scenes they are watching on the television, will be clutching for looting as soon as those pearls are taken away (i.e. as more and more people drop out of the middle class, the ranks of the rioting class are replenished, and the strategy of mass arrests does not work in with the expected attrition).

    The argument that it's preferable to provoke a military coup in the first place (if someone was motivated by political strategy, not just immediate anger, or hunger, or basic economic survival in a depression), and to risk a totalitarian military takeover instead of a benevolent one, is that, after centuries of oppression, you may as well flip that coin.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Those things are not justifiable . Most black people in America get on with their lives with no more problems than white people. It may be the case that black people are more likely to engage in illegal activity and that is why the police have more "run-ins" with them. I also notice, from the UK, that many US cops are black... — Chester

    Yes, you can argue that systemic "racism" isn't really a thing, but I believe the OP states that's not the subject here.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    What you're missing is the fact that such uprisings need public support...most normal people think these rioters are cunts. Your revolution ain't going to work. — Chester

    It's no my revolution.

    However, my argument above was not that the looting is effective, only justifiable (if you conclude the state is no longer legitimate).

    If we agree the rioting and looting and arson and violence is justifiable in principle, then the next point to debate is if it's effective.

    This is actually two questions in one.

    First, indeed, is the question of "will the violence be effective in producing a legitimate (enough) state?"

    However, there is a second question of whether "any pathways are available at all?".

    If the argument against the practical effect of the riots is "they won't work because nothing will work", then maybe you may as well riot anyways while the military state organizes to crush all resistance; going down fighting is perhaps more dignified.

    However, if the argument is that other pathways are available, then that argument must be made in a plausible way.

    The purpose of more riots to achieve a practical political goal, is the "bet" that agents of the state will, at some point, stage a coup; a "coup of the colonels". Though rioters generally don't have such a plan, they have simply "had enough" with the current state and will simply riot until real appeasement (for instance, mass arrest and trials of associates of Epstein would probably do the trick), the consequence of continued and overwhelming riots is, historically, a military takeover (one way or another).

    For, even in a illegitimate state, there is a tension between corruption and noble competence. Even corrupt leaders require, somewhere down the line, state agents that genuinely agree with the ideal of the state; the whole state cannot be corrupt all at once, corrupt elements rely on non-corrupt elements to keep enough order for the fruits of corruption to be enjoyed.

    By rioting enough, the non-corrupt elements of the state are forced to recognize there is only one way to re-establish state legitimacy, which is to stage a coup and basically restart the state apparatus in a plausibly way.

    However, this is not inevitable, corrupt state agents may create a new ideal for the state, purging legitimate representatives of the previous concept of justice and enlisting supporters to form a new state structure dedicated to a new concept of justice: i.e. a descent into tyranny.

    Likewise, a military takeover may simply reestablish the same or a new kind of corrupt state, leading to another revolution of the historical wheel.

    Of course, if the democratic process is "working enough" then the riots are just counter productive, too small to get meaningful traction anyway, and just senseless violence leading to the arrest of the rioters (and removal from the political scene and so ability to contribute to their cause).
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Which violent protests have? Just saying what doesn't work isn't enough. — Echarmion

    I wrote the example of the violent riots, looting and then revolution against the British, seemed to be enough.

    Indeed, most political changes against a government no longer viewed as legitimate are violent. I owe the freedoms I enjoy right now to lot's and lot's of violence in the past.

    The point of democracy is to avoid the need of such violence. My point here is that this is what's under consideration; you can argue the state is legitimate, democratic processes are working as intended, any grievances should be pursued primarily through existing state processes. However, if you concede the point that the state no longer functions correctly, then the idea that "regardless of the issue, property riots and looting must be condemned" is no longer based on anything. Agents of the state and their real masters loot the treasury, people on the street loot Nike and Starbucks; there's no longer democracy, only who's side are you on will determine "who is in the wrong" as in any battle history has observed.

    If there still is legitimate democracy in the US, I'm all ears to hear the case be made.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Twitter has just suspended antifa's US account lol...you leftists still love Twitter now? — Chester

    We're not having this discussion on Twitter, maybe pause for thought a moment and wonder why is that?
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    I don't fully agree with Baden (or yourself), but he wasn't turning this into a revolution against capitalism. — Marchesk

    Is this true @Baden?

    But, regardless of @Baden's view of capitalism's roll in this, I did not mention the word capitalism in my analysis.

    The question, in the context of riots, is about state legitimacy.

    You can have a legitimate state that we could agree is an example of "capitalism". Ok, maybe I don't like it and you do; but insofar as the state is legitimate in terms of genuine democratic standard of fair laws and effective political process, there's no need to riot. If people were looting where I live, I would indeed view it as a crime; the difference is that where I live in Northern Europe I simply can't arrive, from any direction I take it, at the conclusion that the state has lost legitimacy and that people have good reason to pursue their own idea of justice rather than participate in the common idea of justice that is (well enough) expressed through the state intellectual structure and it's agents. I live here precisely because nothing the state does inspires within me any desire for my own re-appropriation of violence I, at the moment, entrust to state agents; and as a conscript I am also an agent of the state.

    I am not a "statist" but I am willing to live in a state based society insofar as it genuinely reflects what its people think a state should be; ok, people here don't agree with my stateless dream right now, my task is to talk about it because if I can convince them then I'm confident the laws would change according to this new, and in my view better, understanding.
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Baden was making a more reasonable argument. — Marchesk

    Ok, so you agree with this analysis:

    That sums it up for me and why most of the objections to what's happening are ill-founded. In a situation where there is no justice, there can be no legitimate appeal to some neutral foundation of law. The law itself and its enforcers are agents of violence, both overt and systemic. The system that allows Target to exploit workers by paying them less than a living wage (half the minimum wage of most western European countries) is far more nefarious than anything a few rioters can do to their physical property. In fact, there is a good argument to be made that looting such businesses is fair reappropriation if not full recompense for the looting they've done of the labour of those under their control. (And with no good alternative options provided so will it remain).

    So, regardless of specific rights and wrongs, the imposition of a skewed perspective that makes the perpetrators of major systemic violence into victims where only minor instances of localised violence forms the 'crime' against them turns the conversation into a worthless back and forth where the forest is missed for the trees. Yes, some of the localised violence is uncalled for and counterproductive and even carried out for completely the wrong reasons but that does not negate the justification for fighting back and fighting back hard against a system that wants its victims forever on their knees feeding its greed and cruelty.     — Baden

    I'm not quite sure where I differ in my analysis, but please point it out.

    They have been successful before. That doesn't mean everything can be fixed at once. So more are needed. — Marchesk

    This is debatable interpretation of history.

    The justification of MLK's non-violent resistance (which is not peaceful protesting) was a strategic observation that violent resistance, alone (though justifiable), is not effective. MLK's logic was that civil disobedience (which is not peaceful protesting) forces the state to do it's violence in broad daylight for all to see. The goal was to get most white people to snap out of the denialism of state violence against black people. Whereas attacking the police, though justified, would strengthen white resolve to "win".

    So, it was not peaceful protesting to begin with, and the reasoning is not applicable today because we can just see video of the police violence MLK was trying to bring to light, and most white people in America today really do condemn the police violence, but they are as unable to do anything about it as the black people due to political processes that are fairly easy to conclude are no longer legitimate (the democratic process is not working).

    The idea that MLK was about "peaceful protesting" is simply delusions of the privileged class. For, obviously, if systemic injustice and corruption really is the case, and recourse through the justice and political system is not actually an effective option, then "peaceful protesting" is not a political threat; let them walk around with signs, who cares. Therefore, the idea that peaceful protesting is the "moral high ground" is simply propaganda meant to uphold the power of the privileged class; it is not good faith advice as to how politics works.

    So, which peaceful protests have actually succeeded in the past in an American context? In particular, about issues of justice and state powers. Just weeks ago, many on the right were praising the heros violently threatening their politicians and fellow citizens with a show of arms inside government buildings; the same people arguing that "only peaceful protests" isn't sufficient are now arguing "woe, woe, peaceful protest, peaceful protest". What's changed, the understanding of politics or simply who's side is using violence to pursue their idea of justice and legitimate state power?
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    Fuck you assholes who justify this shit. — Marchesk

    You haven't bothered to read and understand @Baden or @StreetlightX.

    If you just want to shout and insult, you can do that in youtube comments.

    The relevant issue of political philosophy, as has been said here and elsewhere, is the legitimacy of the state.

    For most people (in particular in the West), state legitimacy is founded on a fair application of justice. The "rule of law" is a term in political philosophy coined to distinguish with the previous theory of the divine right of monarchs to decide what they want.

    For instance, you seem to think the looting and burning things down is a crime and perpetrators should be arrested for that. Ok, now if I ask you how you know it's a crime? You'll certainly shout: Because it's on video!!! But does that establish it's a crime? Maybe all the looters are co-owners of the places they're looting and have had a share-holders meeting and decided to liquidate their stock in a disorganized manner?

    The cover-up of the murder of George Floyd is at the same intellectual absurd level as someone now trying to argue epistemological edge cases that have not been ruled out "100%".

    There is simply no way to even plausibly argue what we see is not a murder, at least in the second degree, in broad daylight by 1 police officer and 3 accomplices protecting the first.

    You may say, "sure, fine, it's a murder and a cover up by the police, the prosecutor, the coroner, the local, state level, and federal level law enforcement, but that doesn't justify looting! Oh the humanity!", along the same lines as privileged news broadcasters and privileged commentators on the internet are trying to make.

    But they cannot be dissociated; the murder and the coverup of the murder is simply proof positive there is no equal application of the law. Heart disease has never protected strangulation before. If you were bullying a kid, got them in a choke hold, and continued a choke hold for 9 minutes while the person you're choking said they were unable to breath, while onlookers told you you're choking and killing them but they couldn't intervene due to your 3 friends shielding you, "underlying conditions" is totally irrelevant. Heart disease would only be a defense if the death was genuinely by surprise in an otherwise normal wrestling match. The murderer in this case also knows the victim and may know of the prior condition, in which case the prior condition may actually increase the evidence of premeditated murder (moving it from 2nd to 1st as the choice of tactic to "restrain a cuffed man on the ground" is evidence of a thought out plan to murder, targeting a weak spot), not decrease it. Indeed, it is evidence (though evidence is not proof) that these police officers were enlisted to carry out a murder in broad daylight as part of a political plan to create race riots and a new national narrative more favourable to those in power than a great depression. Whatever the truth is, it is simply conclusive from the video itself that a murder had taken place, and any other person would be immediately arrested with their accomplices and charged with murder.

    The idea that arrests only happen after a total and thorough investigation to know "all the facts" that the prosecutor offered as plausible deniability for his actions, and the actions of every level of law enforcement above and below him, to coverup of a murder, is laughably absurd.

    Similarly, if you chased down a white jogger in the middle of the day and shot them, you'd be immediately arrested; if you argued that "they might be a robber" and "anyways, it was self defense as they went for my friends shut gun" it would be simply dismissed as lunacy by police, prosecutors, judges and your own defense council, because obviously the person being chased by people with guns is in the position of self defense. Such a defense would be even more absurd, so absurd no one would every even dream it up, if the scenario was black men chasing down a white jogger (obviously the white jogger would be completely justified in immediately assuming it's a gang robbery or abduction).

    So, if the law is not equally applied, then the law has no basis of legitimacy in Western political theory.

    What is who's property is a legal definition, if there is no justifiable legal reference frame, then there is no basis upon which to condemn looting and arson.

    As Baden points out, it becomes group against group, each with their own idea of legitimacy and their actions can only be evaluated in terms of effectiveness in pursuing their own idea of legitimate political power.

    The same American's condemning the looting as "unjustifiable in principle" are the same American's that completely disregard the relevance of laws of other countries when American soldiers bomb, raid and kill. If you think through the political theory that justifies disregarding the Taliban's law, or Sadam's law, and categorizing it as illegitimate, you will see that the exact same chain of reasoning can be used to conclude America's laws are no longer legitimate; if so, all agents of the state become criminals from this perspective, and all acts of violence against them are in principle justifiable; only what tactics are effective is the analytically relevant question from arriving at such a conclusion (just as American generals wonder whether bombing a school or a wedding is effective even if they are sure in their heart of hearts it's in principle justified).

    Now, true, the looters, for the most part, do not carry out such politically philosophic reflections, they have mostly not the time nor the education. However, this philosophical rendering of things is also an intuitive visceral experience. One does not need to be a philosopher to feel the pain and humiliation of double standards; it is simply an obvious lived experience. Likewise, one does not need to be a philosopher to conclude society is not providing a dignified future for oneself and one's community, one need simply observe no such options available. When one sees a murder on video in broad daylight carried out over 9 calmly excruciating minutes, and then see the double standard of justice spring to the defense of the murderers, one does not need to be a philosopher to simply lose all respect for the state, agents of the state and the property the agents of the state are enlisted to protect. Once that respect is gone completely, one simply follows one's own idea of what is justified: to take from the shops what one cannot buy.

    The peaceful protesters are laudible only insofar as their belief in peaceful protesting ability to influence a fair (enough) political process is actually true. If the mechanisms by which peaceful protesting was effective in the past, which is debatable as otherwise why would society come to such a point, then peaceful protesters are less laudible than the looters and indeed the police; for at least the looters and police have some sort of realistic political understanding. American's today do not condemn the Boston riots and looting that birthed America, but the privileged classes that owned the tea did so at the time; so, from a moral perspective, this maybe all that we are seeing, and nothing else.
  • On Harsh Criticism
    Well then, may all of your experiences be harsh. Of course not the Kantian kind, that's not harsh. As to your understanding of the psychology of the thing, that's equally bizarre. At the very least, harshness is a kind of noise that detracts or impairs or inhibits. That is, the only thing harshness facilitates is harshness. And btw, harshness not to be confused with all the things in the world that are not harsh nor harshness. — tim wood

    You do realize the obvious hypocrisy here? Trying to curse me to a life of harshness in the name of "not-harsh" discussion.

    And why would I confuse harsh with things in the world that are not harsh?
  • On Harsh Criticism
    Harsh, if you will, though it's not the word I would choose. But as he describes the subject of his criticism, such a person would not be interested in his efforts, assuming it is not indeed an entirely straw- subject.

    "To all the people ignoring me, you are wrong to ignore me." It is close to a performative contradiction to address 'the worthy gentleman' who is not interested. And Kant avoids that. One is left therefore with the backhanded compliment that flatters the actual reader who is 'not like them'.     — unenlightened

    Have you even bothered reading my posts here?

    And how does Kant avoid that? He berates the people who use the expression "true in theory and not in practice" and completely demolishes any argumentative basis for such a saying.

    Yes, he is simply saying "you are wrong to ignore me" (the academic working on better theories), and considering people are still using this "true in theory and not in practice" fallacy centuries later, it seems Kant did not avoid being ignored.

    However, what Kant did do is provide an extremely harsh criticism of such a position (doesn't apologize or try to empathize or try to "soften the blow" of his critique in anyway). People who are interested can benefit from the critique, people who are not interested do not benefit.

    Harsh critique does not persuade those that aren't interested, or are mildly interested; the objective of harsh critique is to try to actually get to the truth; it is of interest only to those actually willing to do what it takes to get more truth than they currently have.

    When PhD's submit their dissertation, the ideas is not only that it is critiqued harshly, so that there is some basis to assume it has merit (if it withstands harsh critique) but that the PhD student, so motivated by the truth, is able to accept and process harsh criticism (for instance, to then address that harsh criticism before the final submission). The critical method is a harsh process, not a soft process.

    Once one has a truth one considers actionable, then a followup question maybe "how do I persuade people to participate in my objective?" and in such a pursuit, I completely agree, harshly criticizing everyone one meets is not a good way to go about.

    However, my goal here is the intellectual activity that precedes "one has a truth one considers actionable", how can I be sure, or at least more confident in my beliefs?

    My method, and I am not trying to persuade you to use it, is to subject both my own beliefs to harsh criticism (by writing what I actually believe as clear as I am able to write, without truncation or dilutions engaged in for the purposes of being able to simply dodge all criticism by saying nothing substantive at the end of the day; and, more importantly, reading and responding to the criticism I encounter as far as I can, no matter how harsh it is), and, likewise, to provide my own harsh criticism of incompatible view points to see if my belief that I have a criticism is valid. If I do my best to criticize an alternative belief and fail, I have something to think about; if I do not try my best, and I fail, then I have accomplished nothing and can simply assume "I, like, totally could have taken them down, if I wanted to".

    Connected to the broader sphere of social discourse; society really does need places such as this philosophy forum where opposing views can meet on an equal footing and subject each other to the harshest possible criticism each side can muster. Without such a process, then society cannot get to better truths than it currently has, and will flounder around in the morass of "every opinion is as good as another", "that maybe true in theory but not in practice", "my truth", "it's not factual but it represents a true feeling", "false balance", etc. that support echo chambers that lead to social division.

    No one is forced to be here, and the rules here allow for the kind of harsh criticism I describe.

    I have provided harsh criticism, but I have also received harsh criticism. You don't seem to defend me when harsh words are aimed at me, why is that?
  • On Harsh Criticism
    Kant harsh? Someone does not know what "harsh" means.

    Just for a point of reference:
    "harsh
    /härSH/
    adjective
    1.
    unpleasantly rough or jarring to the senses.
    2.
    cruel or severe.
    3.
    excessively critical or negative."     — tim wood

    If you bothered to copy paste the whole thing:

    1.
    unpleasantly rough or jarring to the senses.

    "drenched in a harsh white neon light"

    2.
    cruel or severe.

    "a time of harsh military discipline"

    (of a climate or conditions) difficult to survive in; hostile.
    "the harsh environment of the desert"

    (of reality or a fact) grim and unpalatable.
    "the harsh realities of the world news"

    having an undesirably strong effect.
    "she finds soap too harsh and drying"     — google definition

    Please explain your point again with the context added to your cherry picking definition game.

    That when Kant says:

    Now if an empirical engineer tried to disparage general mechanics, or an artilleryman the mathematical doctrine of ballistics, by saying that whereas the theory of it is nicely thought out it is not valid in practice since, when it comes to application, experience yields quite different results than theory, one would merely laugh at him — Kant

    And:

    Yet it is easier to put up with an ignorant man who declares that theory is unnecessary and dispensable in his supposed practice than with a would-be expert who concedes it and its value in schools (perhaps only to exercise the mind) but at the same time maintains that matters are quite different in practice — Kant

    That the word "harsh" is simply inaccurate, and rather these words are closer to being a good description:

    Harsh
    1.
    [...] Opposite: soft, dulcet, subdued
    2.
    [...] Opposite: enlightened, kind, lenient, comfortable
    [...] Opposite: balmy
    [...] Opposite: mild smooth     — "google

    Seeing the context of your own citation, do you believe now the statement:

    Someone does not know what "harsh" means. — tim wood

    Is better applied to me (who does bother to read context) or yourself (who it seems does not bother with context, yet is ready to castigate others for their diction choice).
  • On Harsh Criticism
    ↪Echarmion


    I never said I had the truth. Read more carefully if understanding is a goal of yours.

    I said when I persuade, only then do I presume to have the truth, for why else would I presume to be justified in persuading. And, indeed, often I make such a presumption: that team members should follow a plan, that a client should purchase a service, etc. I maybe wrong in these instances, but I take the risk.

    But, when I have the luxury to check if what I believe is true, then harsh criticism is the only method I have found that yields any advancement.

    I am curious, however, would you say Kant's criticism I cited wasn't harsh? But that he puts on the kitten gloves; please point out where? If he is harsh, and right, why not emulate him? If he's wrong, where is he wrong?

    Please, teach me.
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    ↪Sam26


    Yes, Wittgenstein even met Freud in Vienna, didn't agree as I suspected.

    I don't know why I didn't consider he would have just directly commented on Freud at some point.

    Freud in his analysis provides explanations which many people are inclined to accept. He emphasizes that people are dis-inclined to accept them. But if the explanation is one which people are disinclined to accept, it is highly probable that it is also one which they are inclined to accept. And this is what Freud had actually brought out. Take Freud’s view that anxiety is always a repetition in some way of the anxiety we felt at birth. [...] It is an idea which has a marked attraction. It has the attraction which mythological explanations have, explanations which say that this is all a repetition of something that has happened before. And when people do accept or adopt this, then certain things seem much clearer and easier for them. — Wittgenstein 1966, p. 43

    Freud has not given a scientific explanation of the ancient myth—what he has done is to propound a new myth.” — Wittgenstein (1966, p. 47)

    Quotes I lifted from this essay (in a journal-psychoanalysis.eu, which seems to be making some sort of psycho-analytic apologetic of some sort in view of this criticism). There seems to be a whole tiny cottage industry discussing Wittgenstein's views on Freud; revolving around to what extent Freud is useful even if obviously untrue. However, it's quite clear Wittgenstein rejects all forms of scientism and pscychologization of belief, as is implied in Tractacus, but there's varying opinion to the extent he rejects the new symbolic language game of psycho-analysis as inherently useless (that it is not a science but "being good at it" could be a form of practical knowledge, in a sense).
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    I have a thread that summarizes the Tractatus, that should give you some idea of what the Tractatus is about. — Sam26

    I will look into your summary, but here's also a summary:

    Having developed this analysis of world-thought-language, and relying on the one general form of the proposition, Wittgenstein can now assert that all meaningful propositions are of equal value. Subsequently, he ends the journey with the admonition concerning what can (or cannot) and what should (or should not) be said (7), leaving outside the realm of the sayable propositions of ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    Psychologizing philosophy in the sense I am using is exactly to explain, and even to judge "really true or false" (i.e. that our foundational beliefs are more valid), what someone believes is their ethic, aesthetic and/or metaphysics. For instance, "Republicans like authority and so want family values and a strong leader etc. and prefer negative rights over positive" is a sort of pseudo-aesthetic psychologization of what kind of ethic and metaphysic they gravitate to resulting in what they believe; I reject such kinds of meta-theories offering new knowledge about what people believe and why, and I would assume Wittgenstein would say similarly (as I assume, so would you).

    I don't see Wittgenstein abandoning this basic idea, and it's clearly incompatible with scientism in general and in particular psychologizing forms of scientism.

    (Also, in the same summary, "Other writings of the same period, though, manifest the same anti-dogmatic stance, as it is applied, e.g., to the philosophy of mathematics or to philosophical psychology." so I will try to find these writing and see how he directly addresses psychology, which I wasn't aware he did, but can't imagine he'd be suddenly promoting dogmatic psychologization of belief, presuming to know the true nature of the noumena that is other people in themselves, of exactly what they believe and why.)
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    You've now switched back to Wittgenstein's early philosophy, which really has nothing to do, or very little to do with his last work called On Certainty. — Sam26

    Wittgenstein doesn't abandon his early philosophy, only mellows out a bit about it; maybe backing away from his claim "every philosophical problem is a language problem" and that he's literally solved every philosophical problem and can go garden. But, insofar as he's looking at philosophical problems as language problems, he is saying all we can hope to do is express what we already believe. "This is the general form of a proposition. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." is to me a profound rebuke to pschologizing belief which was a total rage when he's writing, which I assume he was knowledgeable of what's going on in philosophy and psychology and smart enough to be aware of the implication of what he's saying (you cannot go deeper, you cannot psychologize the proposition, you must be silent). But I maybe wrong about what he thought, as I mention above.
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    You seem to be contradicting yourself, to know is to give a justification in some form. — Sam26

    Yes, but you can give justification to what you already believe without contradiction. It is knowledge in this sense, it is not "new knowledge", reasons to believe it apart from already believing it, nor "more reasons" to believe it.

    I've been pretty clear that ordinary use of language does not address this issue, therefore if someone makes an ordinary statement to express their belief I have no issue. If you want to bait and switch the ordinary meaning for a technical philosophical one, that's not my problem.

    If we specify knowledge as only conclusions distinct from foundational beliefs, then, sure, foundational beliefs aren't knowledge, but this distinction is not given to us in the ordinary word knowledge. It makes sense to me if someone says "I know I have two hands".
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    Where did you get this idea from? — Sam26

    I read the Tractatus to be motivated by hyper-pschologizing philosophy, which are forms of scientism. But as I mention, I do not foundationally believe that's true.
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    When it comes to bedrock beliefs or foundational beliefs, my point has been consistently that they are not beliefs that can be known, i.e., they are not epistemological. They are beliefs that are shown in our actions. The best way to understand this, is to think of them nonlinguistically, as I have already pointed out in other posts. The difference is connected with Wittgenstein's saying and showing. — Sam26

    I'm not disagreeing with this.

    We know what we foundationally believe in the sense that we know it because we believe it. We do not know it in the sense that we have carried out some chain of reasoning.

    Since we cannot make a meta-theory that results in new knowledge content, I will agree with any meta-theory that simply reiterates what is already believed.
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    ↪javra


    Wittgenstein was addressing the various psychological scientisms that was the rage of his day; pointing out it's mostly just confusing and new knowledge beyond ordinary understanding of these things is impossible.

    Aristotle was addressing Plato and the theory of forms. Yes, we have first principles from which we reason; no we can't therefore conclude there is a world of true forms and we "re-remember everything we learn" precisely because we believe what we already believe and therefore cannot come to new knowledge without extending our existing beliefs which mean we already believed it and it isn't new.
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    As a reminder, it is widely held that the law of non-contradiction cannot be justified on account of being a first principle. Again though, if it can, why would it not then be a known? — javra

    Yes, it's a foundational belief. You can try to justify it without first using the law of non-contradiction. What's widely held is that no one ever has nor anyone ever will; first principle is again just another word for foundational belief (in this context).
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    Have to go soon, however: If a so deemed bedrock belief - such as that of experiencing two hands - can be justified, why do you then object to it being termed a known? — javra

    I don't.

    "Belief" and "knowledge" and "justified" are applicable to our "foundational belief"; our ordinary language has no normal utility to name what we won't normally ever inspect.

    Wittgenstein was pointing out it's not knowledge in the sense of resulting in a chain of reasoning nor ever could result from a chain of reasoning. He would not object to say "I know it" in the sense of "I super believe it". He's focused on the word knowledge to emphasize we can't create new knowledge using a theory about our knowledge (that of believing we can justify what we already believe and make it new knowledge is the path to confusion).
  • Some Remarks on Bedrock Beliefs
    However, as to so termed bedrock beliefs such as that of experiencing having two hands, I gave an example of how such may be justified. — javra

    This is the tricky part in all this; there's no problem in conceiving of a justification for our foundational beliefs. It is not incoherent to add to a system in which A is true a justification that A is true (insofar as it does nothing else); we can add as many such justifications as we want. What those justifications don't do is give reason or "more reason" to believe what we already believe.

    If I start with a proposition A in a system, and later on I prove that A is true using other propositions; I have created a justification of A which (can be, but is not necessarily) true. But, I haven't created new reasons to believe A, "nor more reasons to believe it", it was already there, I've just re-extracted it from other propositions it was already contained within.

    Our foundational beliefs contain all the attributes of knowledge and justification. It doesn't matter whether we say "I foundationally believe it", "I have complete justification for believing it", "I know it and can't conceive it's wrong", "this is just really, actually true", "it's the real reality", "I am totally committed to this axiom", "this is me". One or another expression may clarify our ordinary language in one situation or another, but they can all be the same behind the linguistic expressions (if there is difference, it's because it's not foundational belief, just expression of high degree of confidence we haven't made a mistake; that we engage in such hyperbole is why we need to clarify our language on occasion: "I'm absolutely certain I will win the game" is obviously not an expression of absolute certainty; the beliefs we would use to recognize a mistake are the "real foundational beliefs").

    Also tricky, that we cannot access a meta-theory which explains our beliefs does not mean such a meta-theory does not exist and is not true and does not explain all our beliefs; indeed, we must assume such a thing must exist. That we cannot access the noumena (know it's true-true) does not mean the noumena does not exist in a true form.
  • The 2nd Amendment is a Nonsensical Paradox
    Which I attribute to Scalia, in service of what or whom I do not know, but nothing or anyone good. — tim wood

    In agreement here, but not that the other judges would have supported the malitia interpretation. The SCOTUS and all the Western elites are statists, so goes without saying that they wouldn't promote the idea of real local political power. The dissenting judges would have simply given the state more leeway to control arms, not ruled that local groups can have as many arms as they can justifiably "well regulate" for the purposes of defending freedom against a tyrannical government.

    I don't know enough to say for sure, but my guess it that none of the judges understood what they were doing; that they were engaging in active cognitive dissonance; that their state of mind is "of course it goes without saying that we're statists who claim not to be statists".

    So, I don't think that they conceived of themselves as ruling primarily the "militia" content out of the constitution, as to recognize that is to recognize that they are themselves outside it's bounds from which they draw legitimacy and so exercising tyrannical power. They simply erased that part from their understanding and conceived themselves to be ruling about the extent the state can regulate personal weapons, with "fighting tyranny" being meaningless empty rhetoric (no tyranny here, nor will there ever be).

    Can anyone make sense of Scalia's Heller decision without tearing the 2d amendment to pieces? — tim wood

    This would be interesting to see.
Home » boethius