and there you have it. Not only are you a terrorist too, you're not even American. Thanks so much for egging on the less foresightful to more violence.

I meant to paraphrase you, not give a thesis, if I've done you wrong then please feel free to clarify what you meant, doesn't matter much to me as there is no interpretation of your comments that can't be used as an example in my post.

Here, I made it in meme format because apparently words are hard for you or something:

Just out of curiosity, are you an American citizen?

I have had some heated disagreement with some posters in the sister thread to this one, even though we share (I think) a broadly similar outlook on the issue. So I am inclined to agree with you insofar as left-wing activism seems to have a problem of being unnecessarily confrontational. I characterised that as an overwhelming concern with ideological purity over "realpolitik".

There has always been a revolutionary school of thought in left-wing academia. And I am not saying they're wrong. Perhaps the only way out is an ideologically pure one. But so far I haven't been convinced.

For example, I noted earlier how "defund the police" is a really poor slogan to use for what an overhaul of policing. Very easy to use to evoke fears of the lawless anarchists.

Err, that's not what I was paraphrasing. Nor do I have any idea what your meme is talking about, please don't tell me that's your understanding of my argument.


Australian

Yeah, I agree with all of your statements, not much else to say.

You're asking the same question. What percentage of cops are racist? — Harry Hindu

No, asking for actual statistics is one thing, asking for pseudo-statistics that is argued in a form of fallacy is another. Did you even check the statistics given? Or are you just going by this in a biased form without even knowing it? For you are either biased and not knowing about the fallacies you're making or you know about it and are actively trying to hide it through nonsense arguments. I did a full argument for which you replied only a short replay of the same things you already said.

So, if you want to be taken seriously, stop acting like an alt-right appeaser if you aren't one and start doing unbiased arguments.

left-wing activism seems to have a problem of being unnecessarily confrontational. — Echarmion

If you are speaking about activism specifically, then yes, antifa is a confrontational movement of activism. It reacts to fascist movements and development and act against those developments in a confrontational way. Doesn't have to be violence though, they infiltrate alt-right movements, lobby governments to restrict white supremacy meetings etc.

There's nothing outside of being confrontational since an anti-movement can only act upon the existence of what they are anti about.

If you, however, are talking about leftist politics in general, then the confrontational notion might come from the fact that the world's status quo right now is global neo-liberalism. Any politics that question the status quo will be confrontational.

So, be very careful to label political movements as "confrontational" just because they oppose the status quo. Anyone in Nazi-Germany who had different political views than the Nazis were looked upon as "confrontational".

It doesn't mean anything more than questioning the status quo, but can easily be made into a fallacious argument against leftist politics.

For example, I noted earlier how "defund the police" is a really poor slogan to use for what an overhaul of policing. Very easy to use to evoke fears of the lawless anarchists. — Echarmion

Defund in this case has to do with the balance between funds for things that help people in the community which the police are governing. If the police have more funding than all combined active organizations that try to help the poor, trying to increase the quality of life and get people out of unemployment, you know, helping people to actually end the socio-economic conditions that will eventually breed crime, then that funding is unbalanced and not based on rational reasons.

Much of the funding also has to do with how the prison system works. You should check out "The 13th Amendment" on Netflix if you want a deep dive into the problems.

Also, who are the lawless anarchists? Anarchy is a political ideology and I don't seem to recall any of that in this.

What percentage of cops are racist? — Harry Hindu

My own experience, which has been ridiculed of course, is only in San Jose, where I was wrongfully arrested and put in jail for a while after I evicted a room mate for taking cocaine in my house, after explicitly telling him I would not tolerate it, I had to physically force him out the door, so he filed assault charges. I was acquitted, but not being familiar with the process at all ended up being put in prison while I found someone to pay the bail and a lawyer.

During that time I could rather unequivocally say there is NO racism. They are equally nasty to all people who have been found criminal, right or not. They dont really care what color people are, it just happens to be true that some cultures do not fare as well as others in a capitalist society.

If I were actually trying to make a valid rational argument about it, I would point to the eskimoes in Russia. For thousands of years they have lived in very low temperatures, so they have very short limbs, because that reduces heat loss. If I were to be like those complaining of racism here, I would get angry and even violent over the fact that eskimoes cannot play basketball as well as other people. I would demand laws to enable eskimos be included in basketball teams despite they tupically being 5' or less. And an occasional eskimo would appear who is much taller and good at basketball to validate the point that basketball authoriities unduly discriminate against eskimos.

However, the issue is not rational, as far as I can determine. It matters not what facts are, nor what people do, once it has reached the point of emotional and phsyical violence, people are not persuaded by rationality. Instead they are persuaded by physical force, and fear of physical force.

I illustrate the lack of rationality as follows. A gang of people on this forum has been ridiculing those who say disbanding the police would result in more crime and murder. While its certainly true the police have insufficient reasons to treat potential criminals, or actual criminals, with greater dignity, on the other hand, the call has been to disband the police entirely, in order to save livesm, in particular, black lives.

In the USA, the police interrupt ongoing acts of physical violence about 300,000 times a year. If the police were disbanded, all those people would be at greater risk of death, and many would die. When the police were merely ordered to pull back, and not completely disbanded, in Baltimore after the Black Lives Matter riots there in 2015, the murder rate tripled in all-black communities. These are rather undeniably facts, but none of the people saying the police should be disbanded care at all about those deaths.

Thus it is rather clear, empirically, even in the philosophy forums here, that many people are incapable of accepting the basic facts of reality, or even acting with compassion towards their own kind, because they are overtaken by blind anger, and racism just happens to be the nom du jour for its justification.

Err, that's not what I was paraphrasing — Judaka

Ah I see, now you get to tell me what I meant too. Guess its par for the course with you.

I was highlighting your ridiculous, distracting remarks in a comment about ridiculous, distracting remarks. Your argument wasn't being addressed, I don't discuss serious topics with you only a bit of banter.

even in the philosophy forums here, that many people are incapable of accepting the basic facts of reality — ernestm

Maybe because many people think they are doing philosophy without having the knowledge of the actual praxis of what philosophy is. A forum like this invites people who like to think about stuff, but only a handful are actually philosophically educated in how to argue rationally.

It's the biggest problem with open forums like these, educated philosophers and biased nutcases doing dialectics, what could go wrong?

No doubt. It's not like you can read to begin with anyway.

When the autopsy report is read in the trial, showing the dead guy could have died of an overdose of meth and fentanyl — ernestm

You mean this autopsy?
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/george-floyd-independent-autopsy/index.html

Or what are you referring to?

You're so funny, after just mocking me for saying "race has nothing to do with racial injustice", where'd you pluck that idea out from? And then misunderstanding why you were quoted in the first place. To top it off, the actual quote is apparently a response to something I didn't even say. Or is the actual top off that your comment doesn't make any grammatical sense? Hard to decide but it really is great of you to choose to complain about my literacy skills after that whole debacle.

When Aristotle confronted this problem, he said all had to be given equal rights of speech, regardless education. History has shown that is necessary for democracies to function, but it remains a question whether democracies should *continue* to function. One of the founders, I forget which, said the USA should be disbanded after a hundred years.

It's OK darling, one day you'll graduate from kindergarden and it will all make sense. Keep up the hard work in the meantime!

If you are speaking about activism specifically, then yes, antifa is a confrontational movement of activism. It reacts to fascist movements and development and act against those developments in a confrontational way. — Christoffer

I wasn't talking about Antifa specifically. Antifa activism is in some respects a special case, and I understand the arguments around why, say, pacifism is not viable when confronted with facism. I don't want to argue that certain tactics are off limits. The broader context of my position is one of effectiveness.

So, be very careful to label political movements as "confrontational" just because they oppose the status quo. Anyone in Nazi-Germany who had different political views than the Nazis were looked upon as "confrontational".

It doesn't mean anything more than questioning the status quo, but can easily be made into a fallacious argument against leftist politics. — Christoffer

Perhaps I should have chosen a different word, but I did say "unnecessarily confrontational". I don't mean to imply confrontation is never warranted. I don't even ascribe to the position that violence never is. It's more to do with messaging.

Defund in this case has to do with the balance between funds for things that help people in the community which the police are governing. If the police have more funding than all combined active organizations that try to help the poor, trying to increase the quality of life and get people out of unemployment, you know, helping people to actually end the socio-economic conditions that will eventually breed crime, then that funding is unbalanced and not based on rational reasons.

Much of the funding also has to do with how the prison system works. You should check out "The 13th Amendment" on Netflix if you want a deep dive into the problems.

Also, who are the lawless anarchists? Anarchy is a political ideology and I don't seem to recall any of that in this. — Christoffer

I know all this. I consume left-wing media. The thing is that not everyone does. I feel that left-wing politics and activism have a communication problem. The stuff we're talking about is complex. And much of the vocabulary is as well. If the slogan you chant needs a 30 minute explanation video to be properly understood, that's a problem. And "defund the police" is not the only case where that applies.

Sure, perhaps people are intentionally misunderstanding because they just don't care about or don't want change, and misunderstanding is an easy way out. But perhaps better communication might help.

You mean this autopsy?
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/george-floyd-independent-autopsy/index.html

Or what are you referring to? — Christoffer

What Im saying is that this report does not provide conclusive evidence that floyd would not have died anyway, and the fact that the coroners are arguing about it means the policeman will have to be acquitted.


https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/george-floyd-cause-of-death-autopsy/

When Aristotle confronted this problem, he said all had to be given equal rights of speech, regardless eduction, and history has shown that is necessary for democracies to function. It remains a question whether democracies should continue to function. One of the founders, I forget which, said the USA should be disbanded after a hundred years. — ernestm

Freedom of speech in the way that everyone has the ability to participate in saying their opinion, yes. However, for a democracy to work, you also need to channel the collective knowledge into debates and arguments that actually moves things forward. The only way to have a dialectic or an argument between two opposing ideas, that will not just end up in a biased stalemate, is to have rational arguments done properly.

Arguments that minimize biases and fallacies is the only way to do it if the truth is what matters. So while all can say their opinion, the fact that not all know how to argue without biases and fallacies means that not all are capable of discussions that furthers knowledge that informs good decisions.

Just like anyone can voice opinions on medical issues, only doctors can voice educated conclusions.

Philosophical discussions need a method thinking and without method, you will only have opinion, not truth.

I'm not sure it's necessary to graduate from kindergarten to understand your abysmal one-liners. I'm sure they've heard some of the older kids use similar styles of argumentation.

Im not sure the USA is capable of functioning like that any more. The increasing polarity between the parties has allowed everything to become part of a single, two-sided bickering. Today I saw miniature busts of Trump appearing in the grass areas of NYC for dogs to pee one, and I listened to talk radio decide, after two weeks' argument, that Michelangelo was racist for depicting Jesus as white. Facts no longer seem to matter, its just an all-out mud slinging match by everyone. The Speaker of the House should not be ripping a speech by the President behind his head in one of the only occasions a year the two of them are within 50 feet of each other.

Russia seems to be doing much better. Its even expanding again, its now got the Crimea properly annexed, and we let Puerto Rico suffer through devastating storms doing virtually nothing because Intel and others make a fortune by paying workers there two dollars a day. I don't see it getting better, is the problem here, nothing seems to exist to reverse the trend.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/george-floyd-cause-of-death-autopsy/ — ernestm

I see nothing in this that concludes a cause of death being anything other than the acts of the police or the combination of health issues and the act of the police. It seems rather clear that the act of the police, since the way of putting the knee on the back as he did isn't allowed as police praxis, and that the fact they didn't intervene when he clearly wanted help, concludes that they are responsible for his death.

If you make your own personal conclusions based solely on the fact of drug substances present, without regard to any other factors, then you are making a biased conclusion.

Meth and fentanyl are a deadly combination by themselves, even without a pre-existing heart condition.

Russia seems to be doing much better. — ernestm

You think they are doing better because they have a better system? Like Putin slowly changing the forms of government into dictatorship-like power systems and opponents are snuffed out?

I agree that there's too much of mud throwing praxises in politics today, but I rarely see proper arguments even from the so-called intellectuals. Sometimes I would just wish for Plato's philosopher-kings to just take over.

Meth and fentanyl are a deadly combination by themselves, even without a pre-existing heart condition. — ernestm

Are you a medical doctor? Can you conclude this amount and combination to be the cause of death? How can you rule out the cops actions being the reason for his death based on this? He wasn't unconscious before he put his knee on him, so if that were a lethal dose and combination, wouldn't he already be dead?

You sure you are making an unbiased approach to this thing? Because reading the whole thing, it is not really the conclusion being made.

If you are looking for better representation, china's single-party system is far superior, with 3,0000 members of the national people congress representing 1.4 billion. Also the USA federal districting is extremely biased. My congressional district in california has 600,000 people represented by one congressman.

The US position is that russia and china's single-party systems result in corruption, particularly, the USA has charged russia and china with croneyism and nepotism that does not happen in the USA.

Well thats ludicrous. Did you hear trump's stepson announce all coronavirus and racial problems have now been fixed? I think that was Monday.

I wasn't talking about Antifa specifically. Antifa activism is in some respects a special case, and I understand the arguments around why, say, pacifism is not viable when confronted with facism. I don't want to argue that certain tactics are off limits. The broader context of my position is one of effectiveness. — Echarmion

But since leftist activism is acting against fascist developments, it will always be Antifa, since Antifa isn't an organization, but a movement under the idea of anti-fascism. So all activism from this political realm of thinking will be Antifa activism. It is also effective. Media and right-wing politics often label Antifa based on the ones doing violence during riots, but everyone who opposes fascism is being part of Antifa whether they like it or not. Infiltrating white supremacy movements, sabotaging alt-right propaganda channels etc. is as much part of Antifa as anything else. I think there's a big misconception about what Antifa is and the right-wing is taking advantage of that lack in knowledge people have.

Perhaps I should have chosen a different word, but I did say "unnecessarily confrontational". I don't mean to apply confrontation is never warranted. I don't even ascribe to the position that violence never is. It's more to do with messaging. — Echarmion

Agreed, but how do you define confrontation? If a society's status quo is mainly liberal right-wing, how can any voice of the left, not be confrontational?

If the slogan you chant needs a 30 minute explanation video to be properly understood, that's a problem. — Echarmion

But it's not though. By saying: "Black Lives Matter refers to how the police act as if "Black Lives don't matter", that would be enough for "all lives matter" people, but it isn't. Somehow, 30 minutes is needed to explain something that rationally should be quite logical and crystal clear.

The problem is empathy and normalization. People today don't seem to have empathy like before. Because communication is held online and in text form more than eye to eye, people lose the empathic connection you have when you speak to someone right in front of you. https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/sites/liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/files/psychology/research/okdie_guadagno_bernieri_geers_mclarney-vesotski_2011.pdf
Since racism has become more normalized through people like Trump and it's less taboo to speak racist thoughts, while interactions is held mostly online and people don't have as much empathy against the opposing side of the argument, then the side that is less status quo in society will be looked upon as "unnecessarily confrontational".

This is why I argue for unbiased arguments without fallacies. Because the only way to debate two sides of something without it becoming that brawl and lack of empathy online is to stick to facts outside of your own biased opinions.

While I have medical training, I dont think thats the issue. The issue is, if the policeman pleads not guilty, that he cannot be proven beyond doubt to have been responsible for the death. It is only enough for the autopsy to produce another possible reason for his death, and then he cannot be found guilty beyond doubt.

But thats not going to be said right away, by all evidence of this and prior cases, first the defense will point out that he was in jail eight times before, the last time for holding a gun to a woman's chest while his friends plundered her house, for which he was only in prison for five years because he cut a plea bargain with the police by handing in his friends. His prior arrest history has also not been reported in national news, and I did eventually find an investigative reporter for the Daily Mail, in the UK, had obtained images of his court records. So first of all they will say that, which no one in the USA wants to hear, and then they will probably have a mistrial if they can possibly do so while the public absorbs the fact that he was on drugs at all. Which most people still dont know.