[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Socrates99]

BLM cofounder said Trump has to go and they'll talk with Joe. Why doesn't she count as a person? Both parties gave us the drug war, Biden's just worse than Trump on the issue. Thats why its ridiculous and transparently hypocritical for Dems to use police brutality in cities they run against Trump.



If I was BLM I'd demand an end to the drug war and militarization of police. Those two go hand in hand and not much of anything will change if they remain the policy of the land. They should lend their support to any politician who takes up that mantle and deny it to any that wants the status quo. Sadly black voters went with Biden when they had the option of changing direction.

Impossible to say Biden's worse. It just is. BLM is about cops mistreatment of suspects more than anything else.

Yes, the drug war has led to more arrests and the crime bill has led to mass incarceration. They're both terrible and need to go but neither of them encourages use of excessive force.

Trump on the other hand has explicitly called for suspects to be "roughed up."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-police-nice-suspects/story?id=48914504
That's the type of roughing up that's led to multiple deaths, most notably Freddie Gray and George Floyd. What he advocated for was a violation of the constitution's stipulation against cruel and unusual punishment. Trump also often directly opposed BLM by constantly speaking out against Colin Kaepernick. He's an enemy with clearly drawn lines.

It's easy to point out Biden's record since his is just so much longer than Trump's. Would Trump have been as repugnant as the tough on crime politicians of the '90s? We are talking about the guy who bought ad space calling for the execution of the Central Park 5 here.

I don't like Biden. I think he's garbage. I've already repeatedly said I won't vote for him. Come on though, it's ridiculous to claim Trump is better. Just stop defending the guy, it's getting sad.

 

[Seon]

??? The initial proposition was damage to church, not the people in it right? Or am I mistaken?

There is no inherent difference between vandalizing a church and vandalizing a statue.

I’m saying that’s self evidently absurd and ridiculous.

Yes, if we make the assumption that churches and statues are equivalent, burning churches and burning statues would be equivalent. This would be true, and also would require me to ignore everything that makes churches churches and statues statues.

 

[El_Machinae]

Common Law would not recognize damages to churches (or any other building people congregate in) as equal to damage to statues, mainly because the cases would be distinguished because churches and statues are fundamentally different things.

 

[Crezth]

I love the line has now become blaming “memevirus” and an evil conspiracy to destroy the economy. Even though the markets didn’t need anyone’s help to crash and even though the government didn’t mind shelling out trillions to keep the banks afloat, although whoops turns out trickle down is a complete fantasy.

Incredible! The highly powerful and robust American system couldn’t survive a month of reduced consumption before the entire system began to collapse. Damn meme virus, tricking us by killing us into sacrificing the one thing we can’t do without: our perfect system... Now the poors are rioting.

When the Soviet Union collapsed they had bread lines and anti-government protests, thankfully we only have “emergency feeding sites” and “thugs and rioters.”

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, people who are at work can't simultaneously be out protesting. That's pretty much self evident, but I don't see any great conclusion arising from it.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, at least in this context, it reveals that, far from merely being bored, as some asserted and then backed down, we are seeing the way that rage has been building up. The lockdown, in my opinion, is somewhat circumstantial. It surely had an effect, but the way that institutions have reacted is far more illustrative. This is not a six months issue, it is beyond that. All that one needed was a spark for the prairie fire to be set ablaze.

 

[Seon]

or in other words, the causes of the current mass national unrest was material. The pandemic and George Floyd only provided the spark.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Impossible to say Biden's worse. It just is. BLM is about cops mistreatment of suspects more than anything else.

Yes, the drug war has led to more arrests and the crime bill has led to mass incarceration. They're both terrible and need to go but neither of them encourages use of excessive force.

Don't get bamboozled into the "crime bill" trap. The argument @Berzerker is fighting so hard to make essentially boils down to Biden voted for the 1994 crime bill which was racist, so you can't support him if you support BLM. But this is a poor argument because almost everyone in Congress back then voted for the crime bill, including Bernie Sanders. There are myriad of reasons to have preferred Sanders over Biden, but the crime bill vote isn't one of them. And if he shifts the goalpost to "Trump didn't vote for the crime bill", its irrelevant, because neither did Hillary.

So this crime bill thing is essentially a non-factor. Its a complete red-herring, bad-faith argument, being used to do what Berz always does... derail the issue into protecting Trump/Republicans and attacking "the Democrats".

The endless rhetorical questions doubling-down about the Klan are a similar distraction/derailment attempt. The bottom line is his point is that defacing Confederate monuments is in his view, just as bad as firebombing a black church, and the reason he is advancing that argument is to create moral equivalence between the BLM protesters and white-supremacists, in an effort to try and discourage support for BLM.

The arguments are transparent hogwash, with absolutely no merit.

 

[Commodore]

. And if he shifts the goalpost to "Trump didn't vote for the crime bill", its irrelevant, because neither did Hillary.

It would also be irrelevant because Trump wasn't in a position to vote for or against the crime bill, so anyone marking that as a positive for Trump is being disingenuous. Giving Trump credit for not voting for the crime bill makes about as much sense as giving my three year old daughter credit for not voting for it.

 

[Seon]

I mean, the neo-nazis also didn't vote for the crime bill in congress so I suppose neo nazis are less racist than Biden

 

[Socrates99]

Don't get bamboozled into the "crime bill" trap. The argument @Berzerker is fighting so hard to make essentially boils down to Biden voted for the 1994 crime bill which was racist, so you can't support him if you support BLM. But this is a poor argument because almost everyone in Congress back then voted for the crime bill, including Bernie Sanders. There are myriad of reasons to have preferred Sanders over Biden, but the crime bill vote isn't one of them. And if he shifts the goalpost to "Trump didn't vote for the crime bill", its irrelevant, because neither did Hillary.

So this crime bill thing is essentially a non-factor. Its a complete red-herring, bad-faith argument, being used to do what Berz always does... derail the issue into protecting Trump/Republicans and attacking "the Democrats".

The endless rhetorical questions doubling-down about the Klan are a similar distraction/derailment attempt. The bottom line is his point is that defacing Confederate monuments is just as bad as firebombing a black church, and the reason he is advancing that argument is to create moral equivalence between the BLM protesters and white-supremacists, in an effort to try and discourage support for BLM.

The arguments are transparent hogwash, with absolutely no merit.

Ok first, I didn't get bamboozled. A little further in my post I do refer to the trend of 90s politicians being "tough on crime." Its just what happened back then. Berserker using that as an attack on Biden's openness to BLM's concerns is silly.

Second, Biden didn't just vote for it. He helped author it. Even worse many politicians who voted for the bill have expressed regret over it. For some it may be cynical because they recognize it as a weight around their neck politically for others it may be genuine dismay over the bill's impact. Biden on the other hand has been too arrogant to apologize for it and stupid enough to say he doesn't regret it and would do it again. Criticizing that jackass for the crime bill is legit. It just has less to do with BLM than Berserker thinks.

Getting rid of the crime bill and drug war might lead to fewer arrests but it wont do Jack **** to prevent cops from committing illegal acts of violence during the remaining arrests.

At best Berserkers suggestion would bring statistics down but it would do nothing about the police themselves committing criminal acts.

 

[Traitorfish]

“While we’re also going to continue to push and pressure vice president Joe Biden around his policies and relationship to policing and criminalization. That’s going to be important. But our goal is to get Trump out,” she added. - cofounder of BLM

Biden is the candidate most responsible for racist policies and their relationship to policing and criminalization and her enemy is Trump. Yeah, thats hypocritical.

The annexation of Black Lives Matter to the Democratic Party machine was an inevitable consequence of the American non-profit sector's dependence on political patronage. It's not a question of the moral failings of the organisation's leaders, because it's a structural feature of American public life.

The only politically-oriented civil society organisations which are resistant to this process are churches and labour unions, which have an independence source of funding. It's not a coincidence that these sorts of organisations played such an important role in the Civil Rights Movement.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Common Law would not recognize damages to churches (or any other building people congregate in) as equal to damage to statues, mainly because the cases would be distinguished because churches and statues are fundamentally different things.

They have different property values/costs, that's about it.

Otherwise, you're damaging property in either case.

 

[Seon]

They have different property values/costs, that's about it.

Otherwise, you're damaging property in either case.

You are making an assertion against what is commonly believed to be true/against legal precedent. Onus is on you to prove that statue is equivalent to a church, if you want to insist.

 

[Commodore]

I mean, the neo-nazis also didn't vote for the crime bill in congress so I suppose neo nazis are less racist than Biden

Confirmed: Biden officially worse than neo-nazis.

 

[red_elk]

Aside of jokes about somebody living inside a statue etc, this should depend on local laws and other things.
For example, statue may be part of war memorial - and in some countries desecrating war memorials is a serious crime.

 

[Seon]

Aside of jokes about somebody living inside a statue etc, this should depend on local laws and other things.
For example, statue may be part of war memorial - and in some countries desecrating war memorials is a serious crime.

I mean, yes, if laws protect a certain classification of statues, I would agree that sometimes destruction of a statue can represent a crime more serious than vandalism.

Because whether or not you committed a crime or a wrong is dependent upon the laws and values of the society, not because of some divine providence or absolute principle.

 

[Lexicus]

Naiveté doesn't suit you any longer, Lexicus. Nor falling for the talk of people whose purpose is to divide and distract.

Policies need to be thought through, what will be their consequences. Someone defending two mutually contradictory policies is either trying to sabotage both, using them to divide those who'll fall for the talk, or just a fool. And seeing how big the economy of propaganda production has become, with state and private financing, I do tend to see malice whet people keep doing it again and again, ignoring anyone who points out their contractions.

You aren't actually responding to any of my points, just insulting me. Whether or not hate crime laws are easily twisted and used against those they are supposed to protect is an empirical question. Hate crime laws have been around in the US for more than fifty years, so it seems like if what you are saying about them is true you should be able to come up with plenty of examples.

 

[El_Machinae]

They have different property values/costs, that's about it.

Otherwise, you're damaging property in either case.

No, you're not appreciating how common law works. You're usually pretty logical, but in this case you're insisting that your heuristic is the correct one. It's too simple. They're not 'just' property (though that's certainly one of their features. No judge in the land would force you to treat buildings and statues as similar 'enough' to insist that precedents regarding one 'must' be applied cookie-cutter to the other. They have enough attributes that are fundamentally distinguishable that the best you'd do is use guidance on one to create reasoning regarding the other.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They have different property values/costs, that's about it.

Otherwise, you're damaging property in either case.

There is absolutely no standing in law for this BS assertion. NONE. If you can find me an example in actual law where a DWELLING OR OTHER SHELTER is not distinguished from decoratve objects, fine. Until then pull your pants up and quit talking out your butt.