I don't understand why it's an "either/or" scenario... why can't we find both important? — BitconnectCarlos

Because one of them is a distraction for the other. It's good that you and I can deal with both of them as separate things and maybe not have our opinion of the goals of the protests be affected by the consequences of the disturbances but most people can't. Why do you think the first thing the government did is denounce the protesters as rioters? Not for a wish to deal with both subjects in a fair and balanced way. So it's tactical to ignore one of them because of the importance of the other in light of the tactics of the other side.

The rioters are the violent ones. It's concerning that you don't seem to draw much of a distinction between people who peacefully protest and those who destroy and loot local businesses. — BitconnectCarlos

OK. Why is that a problem in your view?

That's fine and we can discuss that, but we shouldn't ignore the other side of the coin which is that people are moral agents who are capable of making decisions and possess moral autonomy. People are ultimately responsible for their actions even if the cards have never been in their favor. — BitconnectCarlos

I guess I'm more forgiving and much more of a collectivist than you to subscribe to "ultimately". What if I poke you every second all the time? Are you ultimately responsible for hitting me in the face or did I have it coming? The US had it coming especially after voting in a racist like Trump. In that respect I consider the restraint of the black community this time around rather legendary, when compared to the reaction to the ludicrous judgment in the Rodney King case in 1992.

We need to make a sharp distinction between protesters and rioters. I have no problem with protesters. I am not calling peaceful protesters rioters, I am calling those who destroy businesses and property and assault business owners in the name of this cause "rioters."

I disagree that condemning the rioters invalidates the grievances of the protesters. I hope you agree that just because someone supports X, doesn't mean that they are condoned to achieve X at virtually any cost. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't have a lot of time so I'll just have to respond to the first part I just quoted. I have several issues with it. First, I think the effort itself is a distraction. Is it really important to know who lit up what building or is it important to understand the social and civil unrest leading up to these sorts of disturbances? I'm in favour of the latter.

Second, I'm not convinced a hard distinction can be made between protesters and rioters, which makes the effort futile - leading to endless discussions.

Third, what if all protesters were also rioters? Do we treat them as protesters or rioters? And then I get back to what got people to protest and riot in the first place and, you, being born and raised in the USA, probably see that as a purely individual choice and individual responsibility... but I don't. Protests and riots are symptoms, say, emergent properties of the system.

Much like systemic racism in policing isn't the result of devious, amoral, evil cops going out there to shoot black people with intent. Nevertheless, cops do shoot them in statistically unlikely high numbers. And a lot of that isn't something we can just blame solely on the cop doing the shooting.

In that sense both the cop and the rioter are victims of circumstances. So where you see the crime of arson, I see a crime before that, causing that arson but magnitudes worse.

I think your idea of engaging might be a bit off. I'd be happy to argue and discuss ideas here or to clarify posts I've made. I don't have a lot of patience for loaded questions or straw men. That said; I have a bit of time to expound a little.

I think the disturbances and the focus on them are a distraction. I think calling people, who are by far mostly peaceful protesters, "rioters", is harmful to any possible progress because to many it would invalidate the grievances of the protesters (because, unfortunately, poisoning the well is totally effective as a rhetorical device and affecting public opinion, even if it's a fallacy).

So in that sense I really don't care about the disturbances despite the personal loss it has caused for some people. I'll call that collateral damage and insist that it doesn't affect the righteousness of the cause being pursued, much as, when a bomb is dropped on a strategic bridge, we don't care about the loss of life of non-combatants.

Peaceful protests have led to barely any progress since 1967, with a decidedly clear political shift towards and outright flirting by the Republican political establishment with racism in recent years I think the sense for many is that anti-racism has actually lost ground.

Now we again have a mass movement demanding change to accomplish equality. It focuses on various sub-sets of inequality, such as police brutality and criminal justice, but also with respect to how cities and states spend their money and with respect to economic inequality that disproportionality affects black people. If things don't materially change so that US society becomes more just because the political institutions are either a) incapable or b) unwilling to affect change, then riots definitely become an option in my book and ethically defensible. Just more collateral damage.

Why don't you try and quote me where I said that? You seem to be gunning for a verbal fight or something. I'm not interested.

Also, what's going on in the USA now doesn't qualify as riots. 1992 and 1967 had riots. These are disturbances.

Nice straw man.

Your description of war is rather unimaginative and unnecessarily restrictive. As an example, US independence was neither about subjugation nor conquering territory.

Violence is the continuation of politics by different means. It's a matter of dispute resolution and therefore looting and rioting can be a means, and should be if the social institutions are incapable of change when they perpetuate injustices.

Popular uprisings have had effect not because they neatly toed the line government set out for them but precisely because of the threat that if their demands were not met, then...

Destroying property and resources achieves nothing; it really just amounts to the mindless destruction of property and resources. — Janus

If only that were true we wouldn't have (civil) wars.

Not specifically to you but an observation of the US political landscape : I find it rather amusing how off limits violence all of a sudden is in the face of actual injustice and how happy they always are to bomb the shit out of other countries for "regime change" or based on trumped up lies.

From now on, every time a hawk proposes to go to war somewhere we should insist they should peacefully protest against that other country instead of resorting to violence.

Kudos for getting through that book.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. — John Rogers

[ Not to deflect but these things are egregious and Bolton never thought to whistleblow but instead wrote a book about it? Why?

New and improved?

I'm not so sure that he said they have "only themselves to blame" and that his argument is the "get a haircut and get a real job"-answer or some Ayn Randian libertarian response. — ssu

He couches it in rhetorical questions but it's pretty clear. Read the transcript. It's easier to spot bad argumentation that way.

Did someone already answer this? Or is this some kind of mine field trap? I'll give my thoughts anyway:

Shelby Steele is one of those few critics in the black community who point out things and do make a genuine point, but unfortunately are seen as giving ammunition to racists and hence are political incorrect, persona non grata or are seen as an uncle Tom, a person regarded as betraying their cultural or social allegiance. Has every program intended to improve the situation of African Americans failed as Steele says? I don't think that is the case, but surely not all have been a success. Just to give an example (from the interview you posted), when Steele says (22+ min forward) that "White guilt is based on the terror of being seen as a racist" and later "the black leadership have become hustlers who work this white guilt", that comment would be something that white supremacists would love to use. — ssu

Shelby Steele more or less says in that interview that "blacks" don't have the right value system to deal with freedom and the responsibility that comes with it, and that they only have themselves to blame for the lack of progress since the 1960s.

Typical "laissez-faire capitalist and individualist bullshit" where you're poor because you're not working hard enough. Poverty as a personal failing instead of a social problem.

I don't know when he studied sociology but either he wasn't paying attention or it was 30 years ago. I stopped reading after that.

https://www.nu.nl/281371/video/blm-demonstrant-in-londen-redt-gewonde-tegendemonstrant.html

Some footage of a totally awesome grandpa saving the life of a racist hooligan after an altercation between BLM protesters and the hooligans in London. :strong:

So there was an anti antifa protest in the Netherlands. Am I to infer these people are in favour of fascism? :shade:

The escalation of this situation can in each instance be laid at the feet of Officer Rolfe. Rayshards and Brosnan are doing quite well. They are borth friendly and respectful towards each other. Of course Rayshards' drunk and there's a danger that he will start driving again while drunk.

Rolfe enters the scene.

Rayshards claims he was brought to Wendy's. Rolfe refuses to believe that, except he doesn't have proof to the contrary. Rayshards does the sobrierity test and while they wait for the result, Rayshards offers to walk to his sisters house. Which is quite reasonable and a good solution to the current situation. Perhaps a fine would be in order but since nobody got hurt or any damages were caused and there's no direct proof of wrongdoing, a warning probably would've been best.

Instead, Rolfe wants to cuff a guy who, at that point, can only be said to be a nuisance for falling a sleep in the drive through. It's not clear to me why Rayshards is arrested. What Rolfe says "you shouldn't be driving" can't be grounds for the arrest, because at this point he can only be suspected of doing so. For DUI, especially first time offenders, jail time is normally waved. So the handcuffs are really a "wtf moment" for me. And that's where it all goes down south.

I think Brosnan up to and during the struggle acted reasonable. He explicitly states "you're going to get tazed" in the heat of the moment, which is a good warning and he doesn't draw his gun when Rayshards runs. It's once Rayshards has been shot, he too seems callous towards him because neither cop offers any medical support for Rayshards, who is still alive.

It's a damn shame, this entire situation, if you feel how relaxed and respectful the situation started between Rayshards and Brosnan.

Ernestm is talking nonsense. First of, Floyd's criminal record is totally irrelevant as they are not factual circumstances that contributed to his death nor can they be interpreted as exculpatory facts for the defendant, or worse, suggest "he deserved it".

The defense needs to prove that drug-use and heart conditions are underlying conditions that pass the but-for/conditio sine qua non tests and were the proximate causes. These are not intervening causes and in tort the frailty, weakness, sensitivity, or feebleness of a victim cannot be used as a defense. I don't see any reason why this "Eggshell-rule" would not apply to criminal cases. At most this will have effect on mens rea but not actus reus.

Even so, given the time Derek Chauvin had to change tactics on this defenseless, hand cuffed man and despite please from Floyd and bystanders he continued to sit like that for 8 minutes, clearly establishes mens rea to me.

An older discussion that seems to be relevant to this discussion as well: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/409/disproportionate-rates-of-police-violence-against-blacks-racism/p1

I get why only 16% supports your version of defund the police. But defund the police, as has already been explained to you several times here, is not about disbanding police. It's about re-allocating resources so more can be done about preventing crime, instead of making every social problem in a city a police problem.

So your complaint really should be explained as "Ernestm is against preventing crime and rather locks people up". And put that way, it becomes clear how stupid your position is.

you people — ernestm

Who are these?

90% of the staff are the same as before and their budget was unchanged. — ernestm

Talk about easily falsifiable claims. About 100 from 460 were rehire.

If we were able to just enforce the penal code and vehicle code, without having to deal with all of the ancillary functions that SLX and others have brought up, that would be ideal. It’s easier said than done — and many of these functions are not easily separable from what should be the basic tasks of a police officer — but I think cops in certain departments are unhealthy, stressed, and overworked; so it’s apparent that something has to change. — Wolfman

Funny how you talk about enforcement.

I thought it was to protect and serve. How does that equate/translate to enforce?

In the UK a radio host was suspended when he questioned his white privilege. A former Canadian cabinet minister was forced to resign from 3 positions for denying systemic racism exists in Canada. A chief reporter from the Western Mail was axed for opposing the protests. NYT Op-Ed editor James Bennett resigned due to the outcry over publishing an opposing opinion. A top Philadelphia Inquirer editor was forced to resign for daring to write the headline “Buildings Matter, Too”. Alexander Katai was dropped from the LA Galaxy because his wife commented “Black Nikes Matter” on an Instagram video of looting. — NOS4A2

Like in any crisis, there's some overreaction here. First example, the radio host has not been paying attention at all the past 2 years but grounds for suspension or dismissal seems a bit too much to me. I think the former cabinet minister got what he deserved (and he apologised). The book judge (chief reporter?) is a bit of an ass; I wasn't aware virtue signalling now also included genuine protest but whatever. James Bennett is just really bad at his job - hey, let's publish a government propaganda piece as "opinion". He should've been fired a few years back. Buildings Matter, Too is pretty fucking callous. So he got what he deserved. Katai is bullshit. I don't see how he should be punished for what his wife said. His wife is a piece of work though. Damn.

Shame. He was capable of decent posts.

As his reply illustrated, your efforts are wasted.

That's one theory. But then how complicated is voting that you need an education to do it? Or that an education differential causes a large difference in waiting times.

I suspect the number of polling places or number of voting booths per capita in communities differ as well.

Does voter suppression have to be intentional?

But it does look like incompetence from what I saw. It's just typical that although it affected everyone, it's again something that appears to affect black/poor communities more.

Did you manage to vote? I saw some crazy waiting lines on the Daily Show.

For instance, it is absolutely true that police officers are often expected to wear many hats, and perform some of the same functions as a marriage counselor, mental crisis professional, social worker, and so on and so forth — although they tend to be performed less competently by police officers, and on a more limited basis. — Wolfman

However, if you recall in my earlier post, I talked about how calls pile up, and how officers in my city, at times, only have enough time to respond to certain kinds of calls — such as those that are violent in nature, or have a real propensity to become violent in nature. If for the sake of argument we were to assume that other proposed specialized workers were able to somehow answer those other more innocuous calls, that would still leave police officers barely keeping their heads above water in regards to the other calls (i.e. they would have a very heavy workload as opposed to having an impossible one). But why have that heavy of a workload at all? If that is the case, then why not, rather than defunding a department that is already hurting, seek cuts elsewhere (like the military, as I suggested in my previous post). — Wolfman

What's weird to me is that in the US people who can afford it go and see their psychiatrists en masse on a weekly basis to deal with their individual problems but either a) don't believe in sociological and mental health issues that are shared widely in a community and therefore require a coordinated approach or b) doesn't feel any solidarity with other Americans who can't afford it to help them. End result: little money for community projects.

Meanwhile, that huge work burden for police officers is a symptom of underlying social ills. Amsterdam is probably the unsafest city in the Netherlands but it's way safer than most US cities. There are no areas in the Netherlands where I'd be afraid to go at night. None. And 18 million people are policed with 5 billion USD a year and that includes some stuff like forensics and victim care, that I suspect aren't included in the budget for most PDs in the US.

I don't believe that US citizens are inherently more violent or criminal than their Dutch counterparts, so the level of crime is something that can be dealt with differently than answering it with police violence and incarceration. That's obviously not a matter of just shifting around money.

I think part of it is how the US is very top-down in their idea of governance. Laws and rules have to be enforced, fealty to a President that doesn't really deserve respect, that sort of stuff. At-will contracts and a limited social net, causes a power-relation with your boss that causes people to take shit a Dutch person would've sued you over and won.

And the police doesn't have the time (and most often doesn't have the skills necessary) to enter into a dialogue with community members and map what they think is going wrong, and discuss possible solutions and bring in sociological, city planning and policy specialists etc. to organise and guide such process and then come up with a plan that has a real chance of success. After that it needs to be implemented, the police has to be taken aboard as to their role of course, but they shouldn't be in the lead or responsible for it as they are now.

Now if I look at some of the funding graphs, it is no wonder that even the smallest altercation becomes a police intervention, that mentally ill people get tasered for not complying with orders etc. And since police are now responsible and if it's not improving, of course the reaction will be "let's give them more money". Contrary to what would be smart, people tend to do more of the same if things don't go their way instead of changing tactics. In a crisis people do what they are familiar with (which is why every crisis now, we just throw money at it. MBS crisis? Here's a trillion. Debt crisis? Here's a trillion. Corona? Here's two trillion. As if they are all the same. But tangent.)

Quite frankly, I find it a betrayal by the police union leadership of their members to accept such incredible scope creep of the services that cops should be providing to the community.

In your view, what should the basic task of police?

At the time I was thinking of the tenant farmers and sharecroppers who most definitely were disenfranchised and victims of an economic plan that did not benefit them. Both white and black were caught up in this. Which is why I regard the issue of racism more in terms of poverty. All races are victims of greed and financial manipulation. — Brett

On the basis of their skin colour?

I'll clarify by saying that my article did not preclude class injustices.

It's like shooting yourself in the leg instead of the heart. :naughty:

I've been called sleazy, a racist, dishonest, stupid, unforgivable and a moron for asking questions and then I make a joke and I'm a "thug". Fuck you Brett for the hypocritical bullshit. That's hypocritical.

In fact, just talking about sex probably is how babies are made!

You can't talk about the poor, man. Because that makes the idea of poverty important and that's really what causes poverty. What a fucking joke.

They don't need a knee from people in the capitol but legislation.

I never ever heard of the Tulsa and Rosewood massacres until last week. This is one of the shorter clips taking into account people's attention spans nowadays:


In 1990, when I was in primary school, the focus on the Dutch slavery past was on how violent the slave revolts were and how many Dutch people were killed in them. Not cool.

So here's all the academic work from the Leiden University by the African Studies Centre for anyone who is interested in Dutch slave history:

https://www.ascleiden.nl/content/webdossiers/dutch-involvement-transatlantic-slave-trade-and-abolition

Black Lives Matter too. — 180 Proof

To the point and funny at the same time. Also why I watch the Daily Show.

In general I think artful commentary is usually ahead of the curve. Even "mainstream" art like tv shows. Here's family matters from 1994 that I came across:



EDIT: not to say that it wasn't highlighted often before. But it's difficult to find commentary like this in "mainstream" tv shows. And it shows the lack of progress in 25 years.

So you've got a model and expected variables that aren't in your model? In other words, you have a shit model. Cool.

Why are we talking statistics?

Well there is your problem. If people are not willing to spend another 60 euro to avoid supporting the use of children as young as 6 years old down a mine then what's the point? We live in a democracy. If people are so unbelievably selfish that they think 60 euros is worth a kid being sent down a mine for then any policy aimed at reducing poverty will be undone or voted out the moment it yields a net loss of 60 euros or more. — Isaac

I'm not sure it's selfish. I doubt most people know about it and even then, the really poor can't afford either the Pixel 3 or the fairphone 3.

This is kind of offensive to people in poverty. I know you didn't mean to be. A few years ago I had the great privelidge to work with a local co-op in an area of my country so poverty stricken it was on the European Objective 1 zone. They were struggling to afford good food, so they set up a worker's co-op, met with local farmers and wholesalers, organised distribution, negotiated deals and ended up with a supply network of organic locally grown vegetables (and even a few wholesale items). The idea that poor people cannot help but support oppressive or environmentally damaging practices because they can't afford otherwise is really just a way of perpetuating them as a market for large corporations to profit from selling cheap crap to. — Isaac

Totally fair to call me out on that. At the same time what you're describing isn't the norm either.

From what I understand, the poor are so consumed with money problems that they actually don't have time to think about much else. Which is why they are often notoriously bad in making decision that will benefit them in the long run. This is why personal debt management by another person is so effective in helping them as it frees up time in their minds to think about other things.

include race referring language — dazed

You just referred to race.

Don't think about a pink elephant.

Defund is not disband. So you're beating down a straw man and you've been doing that a lot in this thread and other threads on racism. Your bad experiences notwithstanding doesn't excuse not reading what people have been writing.