General US Politics Discussion

[Niobium]

these people have shown that another world is possible.

 

 

 

 

 

the capitol hill autonomous zone has it's own wikipedia article. (unfortunately, some moderators are debating whether or not this article should be deleted. i hope it stays)

[Smith John]

46 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

How else would you describe your propensity to simply ignore it entirely and either only respond to obvious baiting posts or trade ad hominems?

Thing is I ignored both your critical analysis and your baiting. It was you who responded to my calling out of your edgelord pal that kick-started this back 'n' forth.

51 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

 

I think looking across my posting history in this subforum you would find that the instances of my use of anything which could even be remotely considered "insulting" are vastly outweighed by detailed contributions. 

I never suggested otherwise. I'm just putting it out there that you have an uncontrollable propensity to start bringing out the passive-aggressiveness which ultimately leads to the full-out pretentious attitude towards anyone you disagree with. Not everyoneyou disagree with, but a sh*t tonne of them. And again, usually unprovoked.

[sivispacem]

22 minutes ago, Smith John said:

Thing is I ignored both your critical analysis and your baiting. It was you who responded to my calling out of your edgelord pal that kick-started this back 'n' forth.

I'm not specifically talking about this thread, but any D&D one you post in. Your contributions basically extend to a couple of throwaway one liners at best only tangentially related to any ongoing discussion, and you spend the rest of your time baiting other members and complaining about their lack of contribution without a hint of irony despite not only failing to contribute anything yourself but actively running away from any attempts to engage with your views directly.

 

You can't have it both ways; currently you're doing the discussion equivalent of loudly farting in a lift and then complaining about another passenger's breath. 

 

22 minutes ago, Smith John said:

you have an uncontrollable propensity to start bringing out the passive-aggressiveness 

What of my recent contributions would you categorise as "passive-aggressive"?

[CosmicBuffalo]

Imagine being such a kool-aid drinker you end up like these people.  Losing everything because some a-hole cop

Spoiler

allegedly

killed a man.  

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer-is-accused-of-shooting-driver-said-to-be-inching-forward-into-protesters

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/nyregion/nyc-protests-lawyer-molotov-cocktail.html

When your 6 figure education becomes meaningless...oh you were taught racism is systemic...I see where this leads..criminal indictment. 

 

[Raavi]

13 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

When your 6 figure education becomes meaningless...oh you were taught racism is systemic...I see where this leads..criminal indictment. 

I don't know what you're expecting to find here? Disagreement? I think most will agree that it is stupid for lawyers to stoop to such levels. Especially because as a lawyer you are in a position where you can actually make a change, yet they impulsively opted to squander it. 

 

[CosmicBuffalo]

10 minutes ago, Raavi said:

I don't know what you're expecting to find here? Disagreement? I think most will agree that it is stupid for lawyers to stoop to such levels. Especially because as a lawyer you are in a position where you can actually make a change, yet they impulsively opted to squander it. 

 

Just giving my two cents on U.S. politics, and the current situation, isnt that what this thread is for?... I had a lot more to say, but felt it was too inflammatory.

 

How exactly can you change a system that is so rife to the core with systemic racism?  Racism that is so ingrained that even people who are highly educated are infected with it.. Racism that is so pervasive that infects every corner of the justice system from the low level file clerk to the Supreme Court Justice.  I mean electing black people that have implicit bias will solve nothing...protesting and looting that can barley last a two week news cycle...didn't they just carry out the ultimate end of their foolish ideology, after they became part of the system, they realized there was no other way.  This is the ultimate end of the systemic racism ideology, and its top promoters are more than aware of it.

Edited June 10, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Raavi]

18 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

How exactly can you change a system that is so rife to the core with systemic racism? 

Systemic change doesn't happen overnight. When I say making a change, it doesn't have to be something grandiose to qualify as such. If we take the example of one the lawyers in the stories you linked - she was a public interest lawyer working in the Bronx Housing Court for tenants. Holding landlords to account and preventing low-income tenants from being evicted, that is making a difference, even if it in a few people's lives, that is one of myriad examples of making a change as a lawyer. 

[Eutyphro]

23 hours ago, Clem Fandango said:

and simply choosing to approach black people more.

Indiscriminate racial profiling is obviously evil and terrible, but I think the fact that law abiding black people have more police interactions than whites is due to the police being on the lookout based on the profile of a specific suspect. This is a stigmatizing 'externality', and bad, but it is slightly inevitable. It's important though for people to not feel stigmatized, so it is something the police has to be cautious and aware about. The inequality in police interaction also gets increased massively obviously by what you point out as well, the police being active in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods, where minorities more often predominate, because there the law is broken more often most likely. It's highly questionable though that these neighbourhoods benefit from less policing. It's actually almost certainly not the case.
 

Quote

'Social justice' literally just means 'justice which is not criminal.' That's literally all it means, it's an English expression and not an ideology. 

It certainly is an ideology, based on intersectionality and other leftist/progressive identity political thinking.
 

Quote

It's actually pretty well established how black poverty in the US is caused partly by contemporary, outright discrimination.

A more simple explanation is the fact that there is a high percentage of broken families in the African American community, and it is well known how almost every single major social issue correlates strongly with the absence of fathers.
 

Quote

Anyway if you don't think pigs are racist

I believe human beings in general are prejudiced, and so are cops, as they are like everyone else. Cops are as fallible and full of problems as other people. Big whoop.

 

Quote

You haven't even addressed systemic racism

I believe racism is an intention, not a social outcome. The criminal justice system and mass incarceration definitely hurts minority communities most, but I believe the incentives are more often profit than racism. But I also think that ignoring these damaging social outcomes for so long can be considered as so outright negligent that it becomes an intentional culpability, and systemic racism as a concept becomes justified. I do think you need to have a strong basis in arguing for racist intent before calling something 'racist', as throwing around the word without proof devalues it.

The criminal justice system and American society in general though does have a deep history of racism, so therefore I'm not surprised African Americans do not fully respect the flag of a country that was founded on their intrinsic inferiority. That's entirely reasonable actually, and I believe efforts such as gun control and basic income should be made to correct historic injustice and construct genuine solutions. But abolishing the police is an inherently idiotic solution really.
 

Quote

Do they have black people in the Netherlands? Some say you do, others say those are all Christmas elves in blackface.  If so the cops are probably racist there too, but only a little bit.

Suriname and Curacao were Dutch colonies, and they are countries with mostly black populations, so yes, we have a significant amount of black people. And yes, they have a personal experience of racial profiling as well. I don't think our criminal justice system is inherently racist though. Our criminal justice system is definitely much fairer than the US one that is for sure.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Eutyphro

[CosmicBuffalo]

27 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Systemic change doesn't happen overnight. 

Spoiler

What are you? Some sort of sympathizer...

But according to these people, the system is so infected...internal change is impossible.  A lawyer is more likely to become part of it and defend it, become a gatekeeper if you will, rather than change it from within.  Even if they want to effectuate radical change, the second they let their true intentions be known, good bye position...hello investigation.  Running for city council, state legislature, waiting on the high level Judges to agree, that can take generations...best to tear it down now, we all know its racist at its core.  In reality and the problem for these whackodoodles, the U.S. justice system is the fairest its ever been and yet still riots and calls to defund police.    

[Awful Waffle]

23 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

the U.S. justice system is the fairest its ever been

you are the dumbest person to post on GTAF.

 

so congrats.

[Smith John]

4 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I'm not specifically talking about this thread, but any D&D one you post in. Your contributions basically extend to a couple of throwaway one liners

Well then consider it a test to see who and who isn't allowed to inject such one-liners. You only appear to interject when it's the "wrong" side who do as such. Hey, we all have our biases!

4 hours ago, sivispacem said:

and you spend the rest of your time baiting other members and complaining about their lack of contribution

Pretty sure I tried to get back to the discussion when I engaged Raavi straight afterwards. It seems your hard on for me got us to this point.

4 hours ago, sivispacem said:

currently you're doing the discussion equivalent of loudly farting in a lift and then complaining about another passenger's breath.

Whatever other forum you're a member of to copy and paste these metaphors from, kudos to that place! They're really good!

4 hours ago, sivispacem said:

What of my recent contributions would you categorise as "passive-aggressive"?

You're right, they're not passive-aggressive; they're just outright cuntish. It's a long-standing trait among the left. You guys are just angry and bitter by nature.

[Clem Fandango]

Pretty exciting that America has its own Freetown Christina. 

 

Too bad it's in Seattle though

[sivispacem]

9 hours ago, Smith John said:

Well then consider it a test to see who and who isn't allowed to inject such one-liners.

By my count you made a total of 11 posts in this thread since Sunday before I responded to you. With the exception of the comment directed at Raavi, every single one of these is obvious baiting, even those that are responses to genuine attempts to engage such as those made by Brobinski.

I only intervened once you started sh*t-stirring, bringing in long-buried drivel about (now absent) forum members and white-knighting to the defence of literal white supremacists and cryptofascists (not just Skeever, but also Candace "Hitler was actually a pretty great leader until he started military expansionism outside his borders" Owens).

 

At this point I can only think that your assertions that you're somehow "denied a platform" for your sh*tty one-liners are either a manifestation of persecutory delusions, or part of the "I'm just asking questions, what's with the aggression?" facade you present for the express purpose of pissing off other members.

 

9 hours ago, Smith John said:

Pretty sure I tried to get back to the discussion when I engaged Raavi straight afterwards

Pretty sure you didn't:

 

On 6/9/2020 at 10:32 PM, Smith John said:

What's your issue with Candace? I hope you're not wishing her premature death too.

On 6/9/2020 at 10:46 PM, Smith John said:

Also, is "doesn't argue in good faith" just a way of you saying "somebody who doesn't agree with me"?

On 6/9/2020 at 11:15 PM, Smith John said:

Yes, because every political commentator, especially at her age, is consistent with their views. We need look no further than our young friend Melchior, who still seems a bit confused

On 6/9/2020 at 11:31 PM, Smith John said:

but as per default with you lot

Yup, that's "trying to get back to the discussion" all right, isn't it?

 

I think the point about "failing to argue in good faith" could equally be made about you. You pretend that you've got an interest in the topic at hand, but everything about your persona and approach just screams "I'm only here to cause trouble", from the alt-right avatar that you keep "just for the lulz" (and which I'm sorely tempted to remove permanently) and to your constant baiting, tu quoques and ad hominems, to dragging in bullsh*t from other bits of the forum, to constantly complaining about non-existent "oppression" of your "views" despite 95% of your contributions being nothing but antagonism. That you've somehow managed to go two-and-a-half years without any kind of reprimand despite pretty compelling evidence that you're not a "victim" but an agent provocateur is compelling testament to the fact you get not only fair and reasonable, but actively preferential, treatment compared to other members who exhibit similar behaviours.

 

Quite frankly I'm getting f*cking fed up of your 4chan bullsh*t so that ends now.

 

9 hours ago, Smith John said:

You're right, they're not passive-aggressive; they're just outright cuntish.

What's "outright cuntish" about my recent responses, then? Care to cite specifics?

Also, weren't you complaining about Brobinski levelling "insults" at you (which were anything but, given they were entirely accurate observations of your position and behaviour) all of five minutes ago?

I would suggest that, if you want to whine incessantly about how you really want to engage in meaningful discussion but everyone else is just so mean to you, you might want to refrain from using ad hominems yourself. 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

A more simple explanation is the fact that there is a high percentage of broken families in the African American community, and it is well known how almost every single major social issue correlates strongly with the absence of fathers.

Just to pick up on this specifically, I think this is a case of confusion of affirming the consequent as well as a inferring causation from correlation.

The suggestion is that broken families are the cause of societal issues, rather than that societal issues cause family break-up, which to me is a far more logical cause-and-effect relationship.

 

It's well-known through statistical modelling that working-class and low-income families (who are subject to the largest socioeconomic pressures) have higher instance of divorce and absentee parents, and that intergenerational improvement in economic or educational status (even within children raised in broken families) depresses the instance of both. This therefore suggests far more strongly that social and socioeconomic factors are more typically the cause of broken families than broken families being the cause of social issues. Which isn't to say that the latter doesn't happen under any circumstances, of course...

[Eutyphro]

2 hours ago, sivispacem said:

inferring causation from correlation.

It's not really 'infering causation from correlation' when every sensible expert on mental health will tell you how damaging it is to grow up without a father.

[sivispacem]

53 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

It's not really 'infering causation from correlation' when every sensible expert on mental health will tell you how damaging it is to grow up without a father.

Nobody is really disputing this; most of these "sensible experts on mental health" would also stop far short of ascribing particular trends in behaviour to this factor, either alone or substantively. As do most studies on the subject which conclude that there is a correlative relationship but acknowledge the absence of any body of knowledge on how or why these outcomes occur (IE whether there's a causal relationship); they also tend to acknowledge that there are other factors such as the nature of fatherless families (IE inherent instabilities) or economic changes that results from the departure of a primary breadwinner, which may actually have greater impact on wellbeing than the simple absence of the father. In their words:

 

Thus, studies of the causal impact of father absence should not treat father absence as a static condition but must distinguish between the effect of a change in family structure and the effect of a family structure itself

 

Your words were:

13 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

A more simple explanation [than contemporary systemic racial discrimination] is the fact that there is a high percentage of broken families in the African American community

Which your assertion above, as accurate as it is, in no way validates. Studies on the relationship of juvenile offending to family status show an approximate 10-15% higher prevalence of delinquency in fatherless homes, but the links between economic status and offending are extremely well known and fatherless homes have a vastly higher propensity towards lower incomes than two-parent homes. And its accepted fact that, as well as the break-up of families causing extreme economic hardships for single mothers in particular, that people who are already of low socioeconomic status have much higher instances of both family breakdown and children being born out of wedlock than middle and higher income individuals. There's also the primary causes of familial break-up; domestic violence, substance abuse, financial problems and family conflict consistently rank amongst the most common reasons for marital breakdown and all are dramatically overrepresented in low-income marriages.

[Raavi]

14 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

  Reveal hidden contents

What are you? Some sort of sympathizer...

But according to these people, the system is so infected...internal change is impossible. 

Which people though? If I'm not mistaken I heard even Floyd's brother during the congressional hearing the other day call for reform. That defunding / abolishing has been picked up by the media as the new shiny thing doesn't mean it's the most prevalent notion.

 

On 6/9/2020 at 11:22 PM, Smith John said:

@Raavi

 

I guess my feeling towards all of this is that the media have spent so much airtime highlighting this that there probably wasn't any need for the protests in the first place. While I of course observe the protests were mainly peaceful, the cause has been massively damaged by the opportunists acting pretty damn unlawfully and possibly fuelling the far-right to gain sympathy and traction. And given the mass congregation of the protesters during the corona pandemic certainly doesn't help support their cause. From what I've seen so far, even moderates have been getting pissed off with it.

 

As for Floyd being symbolic of the perceived injustice, he probably isn't the best example to hold up as a beacon for the movement against police brutality in the US. His criminal past will of course be referred to. Let us also not forget that there is still no evidence that there was any racial motive.

I missed this post initially. Sorry about that. 

 

The media spend too much time on a lot of things, and by that I specifically mean the 24/7 news networks. I tuned in to CNN a couple of times during the height of the protests and frankly a lot of it was embarrassing both in the way they milked Floyd's tragedy as well as how they treat 'guests' on their show. It reminded me of when they had a panel of plane toilet experts on during the MH307 craze. They also editorialize to such a degree one would be forgiven for not calling it news. That said I feel like a most of the other media I consume, print media (WaPo, the FT etc.) has had some great analysis during all this.

 

It's not up to any individual to decide when protests are necessary or not, they kind of just happen organically. You have a good point with Corona though, masks aside it feels like people stopped caring overnight. Which is interesting considering the news cycle prior was dominated by social distancing and whatnot. There are also already some signs that the protest are leading to even bigger increases in cases in certain states. So there's that.

 

Floyd's name was just one of many, but I think the particular egregious way in which he was killed set people off in particular. I feel like he is more of an instrument to the protests as an individual, which is fair.

[Mister Pink]

On 6/10/2020 at 1:56 PM, sivispacem said:

don't think many people who are positing discriminatory behaviour on the behalf of police being a contributing factor in the disparity of officer-involved shootings aren't necessarily arguing that a majority, or even a sizeable minority, of actual shooting incidents are inherently racist in the direct interaction between the victim and officer. It's more systemic than that, ranging from socioeconomic factors to historic. Even putting this aside, if only 5% of civilians shot by police are posing no threat, then the demographic breakdown of that small minority of events, or their specific circumstances, can itself still be indicative of discriminatory actions both on the individual level, or systemic level. 

OK, I'm with you. So, perhaps reason's that keep people in poor, socio-economic environments which in turn leads to crime and eventually lots of police attention. Would that be fair to say? So, things like the justice system keeping people in the system with lack of prospects after incarceration, prison industrial complex (mandatory life sentences for nonviolent crimes) lack of social resources, and just lack of opportunity keeping people impoverished in perpetuity. I very much agree that they are huge issues.

 

I just think, maybe not here but on social media, and the news there the narrative is very much skewed literally towards the police being institutionally/systemically racist and less so about the more deep-rooted issues. Lot of anti-cop hate. 

 

If I can recommend to anyone here that has an interest in U.S. politics, social issues, policing and the community, institutions and how they are corrupt, and the war of drugs, I would highly recommend The Wire. After watching The Wire I had a sort of awakening. Because it doesn't preach to you how you should feel about the issues raised in the show. Instead it cleverly weaves various stories and shows you how they work. I would invite anyone who thinks they may have some bias towards street thugs and dealers to give it go and anyone that thinks police are scumbags to give the show a go. Because on of the best things the show does is humanize people on both sides of the law. There are good police trying to do good work, and there are incompetent toxic police. One great example is in this scene "juking the stats" where the school board revises the curriculum and the school tests, teaching the kids the answers as apposed to the logic, removing the maths questions and replacing them with arts questions, so the kids will test higher and school's management looks good. The ex-cop turned teacher remarks that he sees this in the police department "turning robberies into larcenies, making rapes disappear. You juke the stats and majors become colonels."

 

The show is being credited as being very realistic. The series focuses mostly on the drug trade but each season is themed, one specialises on war on drugs, one on politics, one one media, and the other on the schooling system. It's written by an ex-Baltimore murder detective with creator David Simon,  ex-crime reporter for Baltimore Sun. Originally written as a book, the show also spawned many college courses examining the themes in the show, including courses Harvard and U.C. Berkeley. 

 

 

The reason I bring this up, because if anything the show thought me how complex the cogs of a machine in a city are. And what better example than a city with a majority black population. It humanises those on the street, dealers, addicts, innocent people living in impoverished areas, politics and it humanizes the police and how hard their job is. It doesn't preach this. it just shows you and you can see. 

[sivispacem]

31 minutes ago, Mister Pink said:

So, perhaps reason's that keep people in poor, socio-economic environments which in turn leads to crime and eventually lots of police attention. Would that be fair to say?

Even this is probably much more nuanced in reality than this summary makes it. Certainly socioeconomically deprived areas will exhibit more crime than those that aren't, but I would also hazard that police call-out rates don't fully reflect this discrepancy as lower income people, who are often part of minority groups, also have lower levels of trust in law enforcement and are therefore less likely to make emergency calls than an examination contrasting rates-of-crime in these areas with more affluent areas would lead you to assume. It's also worth noting that deprived areas may actually see less routine police patrolling than more affluent areas, particularly if the latter are public spaces, retail or commercial zones or frequented by tourists. Are police more likely to be called into deprived areas? Yes. Are police more likely to respond to a (randomly selected) instance of crime in deprived areas? Possibly not. This might seem like semantics but it's important in illustrating how complex the issue is.

 

I'd also throw in the notion of community policing here; in that those involved in policing deprived areas are frequently not au fait with the conditions of those areas and have little to no insight into them other than what is garnered from responding to 911 calls. This is also likely to drive differences of approach and potentially lead to greater hostility.

 

38 minutes ago, Mister Pink said:

So, things like the justice system keeping people in the system with lack of prospects after incarceration, prison industrial complex (mandatory life sentences for nonviolent crimes) lack of social resources, and just lack of opportunity keeping people impoverished in perpetuity.

All of which are racial issue as well as being socioeconomic ones, at their core. 

 

45 minutes ago, Mister Pink said:

I just think, maybe not here but on social media, and the news there the narrative is very much skewed literally towards the police being institutionally/systemically racist and less so about the more deep-rooted issues.

I would posit that many police departments- not all, but many- will have systemic issues with racism that are ingrained within procedure and process. The article on New York showing that officers had different standards of suspicion for interacting with white citizens as compared to black ones is difficult to explain in any other way, and part of the reason for higher reported crime rates for minority groups may well be because these groups are systemically profiled by LE and therefore more likely to receive attention in the first place; after all, crime statistics frequently use arrest rates as one of their metrics. I would also voice the view that the entire US criminal justice system is racist; disproportionate sentencing practices and far higher criminal charge rates for ethnic minorities versus larger numbers of white detainees being able to "talk down" criminal charges to misdemeanors is, again, difficult to account for otherwise.

[CosmicBuffalo]

2 hours ago, Raavi said:

Which people though? If I'm not mistaken I heard even Floyd's brother during the congressional hearing the other day call for reform. That defunding / abolishing has been picked up by the media as the new shiny thing doesn't mean it's the most prevalent notion.

 

The people risking (who actually threw away) their lives for the ideology of systemic racism.  This was clear from my initial post.  Making statements that are intentionally misleading which allow the opposite side to impute meaning and provocative ...seems like a great idea to get your points across.  I notice you didn't take issue with the word riots are we clear on that or should you provide clarification on what riots are as well.

[Mister Pink]

On 6/10/2020 at 1:35 PM, Tchuck said:

American police, to be more specific. The one that is actually a paramilitary force with license to kill.

Oh, OK. And why American police specifically? You think police around the world are dealing with the same populous as the U.S.? You think maybe when you are the police force in a country with some estimates of 390 million firearms, more than the actual population of people - a country where many of it's states allow of open-carry and for citizens to carry forwards and with millions of unregistered firearms that the police standard is going to be the same as say, Germany or perhaps somewhere like the UK. It's not unreasonable to think if you are going to hold US Police to a different standard and scrutiny that you might consider the population they have to police? Is that fair? And when you consider the gun crime in the US,  and the 40-50 cops every year murdered in the line of duty it all factors in. 

 

On 6/10/2020 at 1:35 PM, Tchuck said:

Nah, not really. The story of "good cops" is a myth. Again and again we see what happens to "good" cops; they either end up silenced, leave the force, or become a silent partner to the bad cops. As long as the good cops are seeing all this sh*t happen and do nothing, f*ck them. They're just as bad as the bad cops.

 

Wow, what evidence do you have to support this? So, good cops, if they see something bad, and don't report it are just as bad and "f*ck them." Sorry mate but that's a very childish attitude to have. I don't see how that kind of attitude begins to be helpful in any way. I don't think things are as binary as you see things. I'll give you a scenario. There are 3 bully cops in a team of 10. Those cops are tenured and control narrative the locker room. You have 7 other cops just trying to do their job and manage their own personal lives and 1 or 2 of those cops see some injustice. If they speak up, they fear repercussions of being bullied in the job, and work being more of a nightmare than it all ready is. This cop then chooses to look after his own choices and his own path and does good police work with the community the best he can. He just wants to pay his mortgage and see his wife at the end of the day. But by your own self-appointed standards "f*ck him, he's just as bad as bad guy." 

 

And you wouldn't think that perhaps some initiative to help cops in that situation call out this incidences where colleagues are doing wrong, would help? Just "f*ck em." Well, I don't think that's a productive or helpful attitude at all but that's just my opinion. 

 

On 6/10/2020 at 1:35 PM, Tchuck said:

So? The general public has no duty to protect other people's lives. The police force do. It's literally their job. Or it should be. But then they go and murder innocents.

There's no need to be so patronising, Tchuck. The whole police force didn't murder innocents. And the analogy of me referencing retail workers was help you see that police are human, and they their job is hard. Dealing with public, is hard. Can we agree on this? Dealing with the public in a criminal space, is extremely hard. It's not excuse for wrong-doing. It's was to bring you around to be compassionate. Because right now, you are very selective with your compassion. 

 

I can display some understanding to black lives and black people but I can also extend that people working within the police force because people are human. In an earlier post, you were very empathetic to Floyd about his drug abuse and environment and rightly so, yet your level of empathy to good cops is at deeply inconsistent standard. And maybe so, the police should be held at a high standard but if we're going to be empathetic to one person's drug abuse and criminal activity, surely don't hold Floyd's behaviour as representative of the black community, right? But then why should the actions of less than one % of the police force be the metric in which whole hold the whole police force? To me, that's illogical and inconsistent. 

 

On 6/10/2020 at 1:35 PM, Tchuck said:

Hmm not from what I heard. Don't forget you also have complete immunity to do whatever the hell you want. Wanna kill some negroes? Go for it. Just make sure no-one is looking. Or spread some powder on them. Or just say you were threatened.

If racist cops could kills with complete immunity wouldn't the stats for unlawful police killings be apparently clear. Wouldn't the the racist cops just going on killing sprees? You're being dishonest. Who has complete immunity to do whatever the hell they want? Why be so fictitious?  Why not look at the data in the study and try contest that with other data? 

 

The vast majority—between 90% and 95% - of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot. Ninety percent also were armed with a weapon when they were shot. The horrific cases of accidental shootings, like mistaking a cell phone for a gun, are rare, Cesario said.

 

You realise that many of these shootings have been attributed to racism and people ignoring the fact 90-95% of them, the person was shot because they were about to shoot another civilian, or attacking the police officer. Again, going back to comparison of working in retail and then comparing that to working as a cop. It's a tough job. It would be nice if those stats were 100% but it's probably impossible to get any police force to operate with 100% perfection because it's so chaotic, dealing with armed and dangerous criminals. 

 

If you could at least be a little bit charitable and identify that, then that might be a start having a conversation about reformation in the police. Because it's not I'll admit the police aren't perfect and they've along way to go. But your views on US police are extremist, bigoted and often unsubstantiated and just opinion

 

On 6/10/2020 at 1:35 PM, Tchuck said:

Ah, the ones that they love to beat up, eh?

800,000 police officers. Of those with wives, they are all wife-beaters. Let's even say half of that 400,000 are wife beaters? They are beating their children too? What other unsubstantiated claims to do you want to make today? 

 

On 6/10/2020 at 1:35 PM, Tchuck said:

Mate, all cops are bastards. This story of "but but good officers!" if they were good, they'd do something about it. They don't. They sit quietly and idly let his "bad apples" get away with literal murder. It's not slightly less problematic; it's not problematic at all. Police force in America is absolute scum, no wonder the cities have to literally eliminate the police force in order to rebuild it. It's cancerous. It's poison. It can't be fixed.

Good officers will have my compassion when they deserve it. For as long as they keep covering up for the bad officers, they can go f*ck themselves.

Too many claims you are making, without evidence. Good officers can't be good by doing good police work with communities but they can only be good when they call out police corruption? If they aren't calling out police corruption and they are just as bad as corrupt cops. And it's can't be fixed. So the good police officers of those 800,000  will only get Tchucks compassion when they meet Tchucks Police Standard of Approval.. Excellent. I can't wait to see how that would even be plausible but OK. 

 

Ok, are you even willing to concede that a number of 800,000 that logically a percentage of those cops could be good people or are you just so staunchly rooted in your beliefs?   I'm going to do something more anecdotal as anyone can pick out one or example of good or bad in anywhere but Tchuck, do even think this black cop that helps out the community at Skid Row in LA is a bastard? I looked him up and by your own standards, he hasn't called out police corruption so therefore he is a bad cop and f*ck em? 

 

I still like you Tchuck but I never thought you were that extreme and had so much contempt for the U.S. police. The next time I'm listening to NWA drinking a beer, I'm going to have one for you. 

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Mister Pink

[Raavi]

Just now, CosmicBuffalo said:

The people risking (who actually threw away) their lives for the ideology of systemic racism.  This was clear from my initial post.  Making statements that are intentionally misleading which allow the opposite side to impute meaning and provocative ...seems like a great idea to get your points across.  I notice you didn't take issue with the word riots are we clear on that or should you provide clarification on what riots are as well.

No need to be confrontational. My point was simply that those people represent a clear minority, yet are being highlighted and run ad nauseam in the newscycle this much exactly because of how outlandish what they're saying sounds to your average CNN viewer. What do you think makes a more compelling chyron: "George Floyd's Brother pleads for police reform in emotional congressional hearing"  or "Protestors call to the abolish the police in the wake of tragic killing"?

[Clem Fandango]

16 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Indiscriminate racial profiling is obviously evil and terrible, but I think the fact that law abiding black people have more police interactions than whites is due to the police being on the lookout based on the profile of a specific suspect.

That is pretty flimsy. Honestly when have the police ever approached you because they thought you were someone else? No they just bother you because you're drinking a beer or whatever, that is the bulk of their interactions with the public. There is tonnes of evidence of outright racial profiling leading to mass black incarceration. 

 

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

It certainly is an ideology, based on intersectionality and other leftist/progressive identity political thinking.

Damn Pope and his leftist identity politics!

 

The term 'social justice' predates terms like 'intersectionality' and 'identity politics' (both concepts I've critiqued from both socialist and feminist perspectives but go off) by over a hundred years. It was coined by the Catholic Church, I've pointed this out before.. It basically means "people go to jail for murder but who will answer for those who die of starvation while they have food to spare"? I can't make it any clearer. 

 

Anyway as I've pointed out many times, you don't have a working understanding of the left. You have knee jerk reactions to things you see on the internet. I doubt you have a working definition of idpol either, you seem to think it means "focusing on a group" which would mean prostate cancer awareness campaigns are male idpol. 

 

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

A more simple explanation is the fact that there is a high percentage of broken families in the African American community, and it is well known how almost every single major social issue correlates strongly with the absence of fathers.

And what about all the well established concerns I mentioned? You don't think you'd have to already be in hardship as community to get broken homes? Did black women get up one day and say "nah you know what, f*ck fathers." It's gibberish.

 

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

I believe human beings in general are prejudiced, and so are cops, as they are like everyone else. Cops are as fallible and full of problems as other people. Big whoop.

I mean do you think there is an endemic culture of racism in the police that is abnormal in the broader society. Because there is, it's incredibly well documented. We had a Royal Commission say as much, though to be fair the racism was sort of overshadowed by the fact that they were (are?) selling heroin and child pr0nography.

 

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

I believe racism is an intention, not a social outcome. The criminal justice system and mass incarceration definitely hurts minority communities most, but I believe the incentives are more often profit than racism

Well, speaking of America specifically, the mass incarceration is partly the result of attempts to maintain slavery during reconstruction. I believe Angola (the infamous Louisiana prison) was a former plantation. Criminalisation of black people is at the heart of a lot of policies, namely drug policy, which was created in the 70s with the explicit intent of criminalising blacks. I'm sure you know about the crack cocaine response and the "three strikes" laws as well. 

 

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

But I also think that ignoring these damaging social outcomes for so long can be considered as so outright negligent that it becomes an intentional culpability, and systemic racism as a concept becomes justified.

Then what is your point? If social problems are allowed to spiral out of control because the government refuses to help blacks then it's the same either way, whether or not racism created the problems originally. Of course it's an odd position to say "it's just random that black people live in ghettos, but it's the racist that the government doesn't service ghettos." 

 

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

I do think you need to have a strong basis in arguing for racist intent before calling something 'racist', as throwing around the word without proof devalues it.

The criminal justice system and American society in general though does have a deep history of racism, so therefore I'm not surprised African Americans do not fully respect the flag of a country that was founded on their intrinsic inferiority.

These two sentences contradict each other. You say we need to walk on egg shells and not call anything racist, but then turn around and admit that settler-colonial societies are founded on racism.

 

It's not just a history of racism either, in a settler-colonial society every institution was at one point in recent history geared around exterminating and enslaving non-whites. The cities are designed to separate black from white ("wrong side of the tracks" fenced off railways make great walls), the police and military existed to hunt them down, family services existed to capture Aboriginal people with white ancestry to be put into Anglicisation camps, the immigration system existed to keep the country white, the education system exists to stamp out non-British customs. Nobody was ever punished for these things, Acts of Parliament came down one day that said "knock it off guys!" and officials just kept right on going with what little they could get away with.

 

 

 

 

[CosmicBuffalo]

3 hours ago, Raavi said:

No need to be confrontational. My point was simply that those people represent a clear minority, yet are being highlighted and run ad nauseam in the newscycle this much exactly because of how outlandish what they're saying sounds to your average CNN viewer. What do you think makes a more compelling chyron: "George Floyd's Brother pleads for police reform in emotional congressional hearing"  or "Protestors call to the abolish the police in the wake of tragic killing"?

You are down playing the amount of people that buy into the justice sytem is systemically racist ideology and trying to equate that ideology with the people that are promoting the defund police.  Defund the police is a mere result of the justice system is racist ideology just like the riots.  

Edited June 11, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[sivispacem]

29 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Defund the police is a mere result of the justice system is racist ideology just like the riots.  

On what are you basing this assertion? 

[Raavi]

12 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

You are down playing the amount of people that buy into the justice sytem is systemically racist ideology and trying to equate that ideology with the people that are promoting the defund police.  Defund the police is a mere result of the justice system is racist ideology just like the riots.  

Those that are the loudest often are not the majority. I think these protests and the riots are not really attributable to just Floyd's death or just a certain viewpoint. Sure Floyd's death was the 'trigger' but you have to view it in the context of COVID, the lockdowns and the tens of millions of people that lost their livelihood virtually overnight. If we compare this case , whilst absolutely shocking and horrible, the video was just as disturbing as the Eric Garner video - yet that didn't result in the solid week of unrest, looting and burning, cancellation of shows, firing of celebrities, resigning of CEOs etc, calls to defund the police. Furthermore if we compare this case to the Breonna Taylor case- that one is arguably even more stark, yet no mass protests or unrest followed.  I think you simply cannot divorce what happened and is still happening from the current context of the pandemic and economic situation. 

[CosmicBuffalo]

1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

On what are you basing this assertion? 

Spoiler

Its impossible to engage in any kind of discussion with you...I have tried, but it gets back to arguing over stats or more likely logical fallacy nonsense debate rules which I do not agree with and never agreed to.  This topic says U.S. politics...not debating 101 with logical fallacies...you see something logically flawed point it out, but use your own opinions to counter.   Point out my incorrect assumptions with actual substance.  That shows my assumption is wrong in reality preferably without trying to defer to statistics at every turn.

 

Its a logically flowing conclusion to the ideology that the entire justice system is racist.  I have seen defund courts as well.

Edited June 11, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[CosmicBuffalo]

2 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Those that are the loudest often are not the majority. I think these protests and the riots are not really attributable to just Floyd's death or just a certain viewpoint. Sure Floyd's death was the 'trigger' but you have to view it in the context of COVID, the lockdowns and the tens of millions of people that lost their livelihood virtually overnight. If we compare this case , whilst absolutely shocking and horrible, the video was just as disturbing as the Eric Garner video - yet that didn't result in the solid week of unrest, looting and burning, cancellation of shows, firing of celebrities, resigning of CEOs etc, calls to defund the police. Furthermore if we compare this case to the Breonna Taylor case- that one is arguably even more stark, yet no mass protests or unrest followed.  I think you simply cannot divorce what happened and is still happening from the current context of the pandemic and economic situation. 

Coronavirus lockdowns effect everyone, but the only people that seem to out looting during protests are extremist types.  Coronavirus trigger sure..irrelevant to my point, but sure its part of the riots.  Still another dodge, this systemic racist ideology is being promoted everywhere...and leads to these type of actions.

Spoiler

This isn't a one off...its being promoted by every media outlet and most major corporations.

Where is the video of Breonna Taylor?  The video is simply so shocking in the Floyd case and is why its distinguishable from all the other cases.

[sivispacem]

1 hour ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Its a logically flowing conclusion

I think you've misspelt "logical fallacy". 

[Raavi]

4 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Coronavirus lockdowns effect everyone, but the only people that seem to out looting during protests are extremist types. 

A certain subset is extreme in their beliefs sure, but I think the majority of the people that went looting weren't doing so from any kind of extremist ideology, rather simply opportunity. 

 

4 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Still another dodge, this systemic racist ideology is being promoted everywhere.. and leads to these type of actions.

I mean we've been over this across the span of half a dozen pages a while back so I'm not gonna relitigate everything again. The way I see it is that objectively you have some rather stark racial discrepancies within various level of the criminal justice system. This is pure statistical fact. Where the crux lies however is what causes these discrepancies and here viewpoints diverge drastically.

 

I don't see how subscribing to the notion of systemic racism leads to violence however. It does lead to people wanting to have the system change, which is understandable. The violent people will be violent regardless.

 

4 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Where is the video of Breonna Taylor?  The video is simply so shocking in the Floyd case and is why its distinguishable from all the other cases.

There are only crime scene photographs, the cops weren't wearing any bodycams at the time, which in case you have no-knock warrants should really be the bare minimum.  But being shot by police in your own bed after they bust in your bedroom door in the early morning hours, sounds positively nightmarish. The video in the Floyd case is indeed shocking, but so were videos of other previous victims of unjustifiable homicides by cops. I don't agree that is necessarily distinguishable from other cases, the Eric Garner video was incredibly painful to watch as well.

[CosmicBuffalo]

27 minutes ago, Raavi said:

A certain subset is extreme in their beliefs sure, but I think the majority of the people that went looting weren't doing so from any kind of extremist ideology, rather simply opportunity. 

Maybe...hard to know each individual motivations...I am very confident that Brooklyn attorneys were motivated by it though.

27 minutes ago, Raavi said:

I mean we've been over this across the span of half a dozen pages a while back so I'm not gonna relitigate everything again. The way I see it is that objectively you have some rather stark racial discrepancies within various level of the criminal justice system. This is pure statistical fact. Where the crux lies however is what causes these discrepancies and here viewpoints diverge drastically.

Yes, drastically

27 minutes ago, Raavi said:

 

I don't see how subscribing to the notion of systemic racism leads to violence however. It does lead to people wanting to have the system change, which is understandable. The violent people will be violent regardless.

I find it very troubling that an ivy league attorney, and 2 other highly educated attorneys would go on random sprees of violence with seemingly no other justifiable reason.  Isn't there education supposed to step in to say, hey, these actions are very stupid and I am too smart and worked too hard to piss this all away.  Those people were not oppressed.  They are part of the system and know what happens to people when they do stupid things like loot or shoot other people.  Not saying an attorney is above crime.  But substance abuse, greed, or laziness is usually the cause...maybe blind rage takes over in a rare cases or even racism could be cause.  This is pretty much unheard of but it will not be the last.   I would be willing to bet they are actually decent people, but their ideology was too powerful.  The guy in Colorado seems to have severe mental health issues just by looking at him which is probably more of the cause with him.  If people as educated and intelligent as these people can become this insane, it cannot be good for average or below average people to be walking around with this crap in their heads.  

27 minutes ago, Raavi said:

There are only crime scene photographs, the cops weren't wearing any bodycams at the time, which in case you have no-knock warrants should really be the bare minimum.  But being shot by police in your own bed after they bust in your bedroom door in the early morning hours, sounds positively nightmarish. The video in the Floyd case is indeed shocking, but so were videos of other previous victims of unjustifiable homicides by cops. I don't agree that is necessarily distinguishable from other cases, the Eric Garner video was incredibly painful to watch as well.

Seen the Garner video...its terrible but not nearly as bad, the cop in the Floyd video looks like a demon, and I am not religious,  he just looks evil, and Eric Garner at least somewhat resisted and appear to struggle...Floyd is literally laying there not moving for minutes, he is not a threat for at least half of the video.