You don’t call that racism, so I suppose you don’t find it necessary to fight against it. — Congau

These responses are a bit rabid. You keep labelling people in simplistic terms. If someone questions a definition they’re regarded as accessories to racism. This is really making me question the real intent of many posts.

Edit: a person can think what they like, it’s acting it out that’s the crime,

Let's take a moment to look at a couple of conservative argument patterns.

What do conservatives want? Usually for things to stay the same, in some broad sense. It's very difficult to get your run of the mill "conservative moderate" to actually have a clearly stated opinion on anything substantive. But they do do a few things:

(1) "I'm not pro-X, I'm anti-anti-X" - "I'm not for the continued subjugation and alienation from justice of POCs, I'm simply against what activists with those concerns are doing at the moment".

It's the same shit for every prejudice. "I'm not against black people getting the vote, I'm just against the actions the protesters are taking", "I'm not against women's suffrage, I'm just against their activists using extreme tactics", "I'm not for service providers being able to refuse service based on ethnicity/sexuality/gender, I'm just against forcing people to speak in a certain way", "I'm not for maintaining gender and racial equality in hiring practices, I'm just for employers having the right to do things as they see fit.". It's the same shit all the time.

Notice that the argument style never has to offer substantive content on the issues of the effected group. It's an effective way to gainsay any progressive point.

Also note that the argument can be applied universally to all anti-X (antiracist) political agitation while the argument's user can insist that there is some pure, imagined morally unambiguous form of anti-X action. "I just wish anti-X activists behaved in this imaginary way, then they would be vindicated". In discursive function it gainsays anti-X agitation universally, in logical structure its user need not fully commit to the idea so long as they have this ideal state of things in mind, "Yes I'm pro-X, but not like this... Not like this".

(2) "If you're for X, that makes you a stereotype associated with X"; "So you're supporting protesters' decisions to destroy property and loot, that makes you an anarchist/communist/fascist/authoritarian".

Notice that in a less inflammatory context, that would immediately be recognised as a hasty generalisation, and a deflection onto side issues; the IRL political opinion equivalent of thread derailing. Further notice that it's a terrible thought pattern for actually getting at the facts of things. It is tribalist thinking at its worst; "I put you in a box, so I don't have to listen to what you're saying about the substantive issues".

Notice that the argument style never has to offer substantive content on the issues of the effected group. It's an effective way to gainsay any progressive point. — fdrake

True, but this only acts as a bump along the road. We pounce on the Conservative's lack of substance by saying "well what would you do instead to improve the lot of the affected group"? They provide some supposed solution (usually always the free market) and now we're into discussing the merits of each proposed solution. Which is where we should have started. So why the deflection? Because for the conservative, being anti-anti X is their only trick. Take that away and conservatism is just apathy.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This is the way to do it.

:clap:

Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?

This:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/501583-majority-of-minneapolis-city-council-vows-to-disband-police-department

:sparkle:

Funny, the one place which burned down a police precinct got the kind of necessary change needed... :chin:

Comrade Cotton knows whats up. American Imperialism does as much damage to the world as American police violence does to it's own people. The demolishing of both would be great.

This:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/501583-majority-of-minneapolis-city-council-vows-to-disband-police-department — Baden

So how does this work? Is it a steady decline in crime as the police force is slowly disbanded, or is it an overnight change. Does the police force go in one fell swoop or small steps?

Did we talk about the Tom Cotton NYT op-ed piece? Crossing fingers that Bennet and Bari get fired from the backlash. — Maw

Joy to the world, Bennet was fired

Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?

This: — Baden

Yeah brilliant. Perhaps the uniforms will be a different colour. I'm sure Jeff Bezos is quaking in his boots. Perhaps next week we could have another set of country-wide riots and get them to change the logo too.

There is a debate raging in the UK about which statues should be pulled down and if it is justified to pull them down and how to determine which should, or shouldn't be pulled down. People are saying should we now pull down the statue of Churchill in parliament square.
I was there when this happened, nice Mohican.

I dove in some Dutch slavery past. Apparently all the slave owners were compensated 300 guilders per slave. That resulted in 12 million guilders in 1863, which was about 10% of the government's budget.

There is a debate raging in the UK about which statues should be pulled down and if it is justified to pull them down and how to determine which should, or shouldn't be pulled down. — Punshhh

Anyone debating this is missing the point entirely. Pulling down a statue of someone associated with the the oppression of your community (or some community you feel solidarity for) is a visceral act, not a strategy. Is like a yell, or punching the wall. The only people who 'discuss' it are people who don't have that visceral reaction but are interested in making it look like they do.

Really? You think all this involves is changing the uniform colour? That's rather silly.

Really? You think all this involves is changing the uniform colour? That's rather silly. — Baden

It was obviously rhetorical hyperbole. Has my prior posting history really given you justifiable reason to think I actually am that stupid such that you'd even need to ask?

You served the rhetoric, I returned it. Committing to disband an entire police force is a big step. It is exactly what was called for and eventually done nationwide in Northern Ireland where the RUC was replaced by the PSNI. And it worked. Maybe you're more cynical than me about these politicians' intentions. That's fine. But in principle, it's the type of thing that needs to be done. And what Bezos has to do with it is beyond me.

Baden

This:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/501583-majority-of-minneapolis-city-council-vows-to-disband-police-department
— Baden

So how does this work? Is it a steady decline in crime as the police force is slowly disbanded, or is it an overnight change. Does the police force go in one fell swoop or small steps? — Brett

It takes and should take time. I don't know exactly how they'll do it but it did work in Northern Ireland and the situation is analagous in many, if not all, ways.

Mmmmm.

And what Bezos has to do with it is beyond me. — Baden

If the police force are disproportionately made up of racists, those with sub-concious bias, or even those whose mere appearance of bias exacerbates a problem then it a good part of the solution to disband. This was almost certainly the case with the RUC who arguably satisfied all three criteria insofar as they caused a perpetuation of sectarian violence.

None of those three criteria have been demonstrated to be the case insofar as they cause or exacerbate the racial disparity in Fatalities resulting from police activities. As far as the statistics seem to show, police fatal intervention against minorities seems to be aligned with the extent to which those minorities are likely to be involved in crime. Theres been no evidence presented (to my knowledge) that the racism of individual police officers is actually having a substantial influence on fatality rates.

The police force (like so many other institutions) is systemically racist because the consequences of its actions disproportionately affect minority groups, but this is to do with the status of minority groups in society, not some factors contained within the human element of the institution in question, so removing that element has little effect (or even no effect at all depending on what it is replaced with).

The status of minority groups in society is a a consequence of, and perpetuated by, those who have power and resources suppressing the collective power of those groups in order to maintain the artificial power of capital over collective action.

So if we want to tackle the problem, we need to remove the power and capital from those responsible (making a broad assumption that anyone who has power and capital is probably in that group).

Making this a single issue myth complete with heroes and uniformed (easy to identify) villains just makes it laughably easy for those who benefit from the disparity in power to set the real issues aside for another few years, install some paper cut-out version of a solution, and carry on reaping the reward. Hence Jeff Bezos.

I don’t if you’ve seen this. I put it up for anyone to read, including myself.

https://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/sites/nipb/files/publications/research-on-experiences-of-new-psni-local-policing-model.PDF

I dove in some Dutch slavery past. Apparently all the slave owners were compensated 300 guilders per slave. That resulted in 12 million guilders in 1863, which was about 10% of the government's budget.

Yes, there were large amounts of compensation paid out to the traders and businessmen who would loose out in the UK too. Nothing was paid to the slaves who were liberated.

is a visceral act, not a strategy. Is like a yell, or punching the wall.

I know, people are asking should the statue have been removed by the council by now. Should statues be removed by public consent etc.

"Here's freedom for you homeless, uneducated n*****s. Now be grateful."

Should statues be removed by public consent etc. — Punshhh

It doesn't matter one tiny bit. People are dying, or being forced into slavery by the thousands as a direct result of decisions made by corporations to lower the prices on products. People are being forced into situations where they have little alternative to crime (and so meet the excessive, often fatal, violence of the police), just because they're not being paid enough by the same people.

Who gives a shit about a statue?... The people who'd rather post themselves on Facebook making some self-serving gesture than actually do what is in their power to undermine the economic problems causing such widespread and disproportionate suffering.

You're allowed to care about more than one thing you know. For example, if there were a statue of Nazi up in a neighbourhood with a lot of Jews in it and it got pulled down, why on earth would we criticize that?

I didn't criticise it. Pull them all down for all I care.

I'm criticising the scope such reification gives for people to ignore the real problem in favour of some Instagramable snapshot of a solution.

When I see people tearing down a statue of a notorious slaver and then refusing to buy any products from companies who benefitted from slavery, now or then, I'll be more content.

As it is, I see people turning up to tear the statue down in the very fucking clothing that's being made by actual slaves right now. Taking photos of it on phones whose minerals are mined by actual slaves, right now. Telling all their friends about it on social media platforms hosted by companies supporting actual slavery right now.