[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Crezth]

Only white people will be seen as violent and unreasonable?

Must be all that hip hop and rap music they listen to.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yea yea we know there is a significant minority who wish to continue the status quo of shooting and imprisoning and vastly disproportionate amount of young black males to feel better about themselves. You all have made your points quite clear.

Rather binary thinking to state that the only stances people can have are "defund the police" or "kill more black people". I suppose if this is as deep as your thinking gets then that might explain why you assume that's true for everyone.

 

[Crezth]

Rather binary thinking to state that the only stances people can have are "defund the police" or "kill more black people". I suppose if this is as deep as your thinking gets then that might explain why you assume that's true for everyone.

Yes, there is the third option "do nothing" and the fourth option "offer hopes and prayers," not to mention the fifth option "change some voice actors in adult cartoons" and the sixth option "pass another bill criminalizing chokeholds except in cases where the cop wants to use a chokehold."

Do any of the police apologists have a good reason police funding should keep rising when it's the only public investment that hasn't been defunded in the past 30 years?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Must be all that hip hop and rap music they listen to.

Or could be the baying mob on their doorstep that outnumbered them 100 to 1.

 

[Crezth]

Or could be the baying mob on their doorstep that outnumbered them 100 to 1.

Yes, amazing how threats of violence make people violent. I'm so glad you agree the rioters are guiltless.

 

[gay_Aleks]

If there was a "baying mob" on my doorstep, I would simply rethink my socioeconomic status and question why there's a "baying mob" in front of my house.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, there is the third option "do nothing" and the fourth option "offer hopes and prayers," not to mention the fifth option "change some voice actors in adult cartoons" and the sixth option "pass another bill criminalizing chokeholds except in cases where the cop wants to use a chokehold."

Do any of the police apologists have a good reason police funding should keep rising when it's the only public investment that hasn't been defunded in the past 30 years? Y'know, to pay for all our tax cuts and liberty?

What about the 7th option of "tighter controls and reduced protections for police officers". Perhaps something like...

1. Qualified immunity gone, and cops are personally held liable to damages they cause.
2. Cops convicted of police brutality are permanently banned from serving in the state.
3. Cops have a duty to intervene against police brutality, or are considered accessory to the crime.
4. Not wearing and turning off body cameras is considered a criminal offense.

If that was done nationwide, and point 2 was amended from "in the state" to "ever again", then that would be pretty good no?

My point was that the comment that this wasn't good enough as it didn't get to the ultimate end point, assumes that there is only one correct ultimate end point. Maybe people might consider something like the above is actually pretty good, or certainly a pretty good starting point. Whether or not you think it's good enough, it's certainly not fair to characterise that as "kill more black people"/"hopes and prayers"/"do nothing"/etc/

 

[Seon]

Or uh, y’know, just hunker down. Like normal, sane people.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If there was a "baying mob" on my doorstep, I would simply rethink my socioeconomic status and question why there's a "baying mob" in front of my house.

I honestly would like to see that put to the test, because I very much doubt that's what you would do unless you're a Vulcan or something.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Class consciousness equals being Vulcan? Interesting thought, I haven't heard of this one.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Class consciousness equals being Vulcan? Interesting thought, I haven't heard of this one.

No I meant the claim that no part of your brain would be occupied with concerns for your own safety or having any sort of emotional response, but would just be 100% devoted to calm consideration of how it was all your fault.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Or uh, y’know, just hunker down. Like normal, sane people.

Well these are Americans.

 

[Crezth]

What about the 7th option of "tighter controls and reduced protections for police officers". Perhaps something like...

If that was done nationwide, and point 2 was amended from "in the state" to "ever again", then that would be pretty good no?

It's a good start, thank you for making a concrete point. However there's no evidence it'd reduce incarceration, increase reinvestment in underserved communities, nor increase conviction rates for police brutality; but it is a good start.

BLM's platform is the way it is because they've calculated the best path to reducing police brutality is to reduce police funding and increase community reinvestment. Many reforms offered until now have ultimately done nothing to budge the status quo, including the much-touted body cam reform to begin with, so there's a good argument that insufficient reform will just prolong a murderous status quo. Granted that may not be yours or anyone's particular intent, but in policy-making and government, incompetence is a form of malfeasance.

 

[gay_Aleks]

No I meant the claim that no part of your brain would be occupied with concerns for your own safety or having any sort of emotional response, but would just be 100% devoted to calm consideration of how it was all your fault.

Well, I would be thinking less of that, and more, "The mob probably isn't coming for me. Why am I thinking of grabbing a gun with my wife and threatening them? Oh, it's because I'm a rich country club guy. For the sake of remaining an alive, and preferably unmocked, rich country club guy, I should stay inside and not wave a gun in the most comic way possible."

I would, however, understand fully, if you find such a self-aware premise unbelievable.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's a good start, thank you for making a concrete point. However there's no evidence it'd reduce incarceration, increase reinvestment in underserved communities, nor increase conviction rates for police brutality; but it is a good start.

I think that would depend entirely on how well the points were enforced, and who would be doing the enforcing, but if they were enforced I don't see how they could fail to have a pretty big impact on reducing police brutality. No obviously it would have no effect on reinvestment in communities, but that's a rather large goalpost shift isn't it? I thought the scope here was specifically about curbing police excesses, not solving all societal problems.

BLM's platform is the way it is because they've calculated the best path to reducing police brutality is to reduce police funding and increase community reinvestment.

That's their platform though. I think it's high time the U.S. government(s) did something about their awful police forces, but I don't think that means their obliged to do so in a way specifically approved by BLM. They're not actually in charge.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, I would be thinking less of that, and more, "The mob probably isn't coming for me. Why am I thinking of grabbing a gun with my wife and threatening them? Oh, it's because I'm a rich country club guy. For the sake of remaining an alive, and preferably unmocked, rich country club guy, I should stay inside and not wave a gun in the most comic way possible."

I would, however, understand fully, if you find such a self-aware premise unbelievable.

Why would you think they probably weren't coming for you if they'd just broken into your community (labelled as private property) and were congregating outside your house? What would you think they were there for? If you'd just seen weeks of news stories of buildings being burned down by baying mobs, and a baying mob shows up outside your house, why would you assume that you'd be safe in your house from them? Is your house flame retardant and armoured?

 

[Crezth]

I think that would depend entirely on how well the points were enforced, and who would be doing the enforcing, but if they were enforced I don't see how they could fail to have a pretty big impact on reducing police brutality. No obviously it would have no effect on reinvestment in communities, but that's a rather large goalpost shift isn't it? I thought the scope here was specifically about curbing police excesses, not solving all societal problems.

The people doing the enforcing would largely be the same. DAs and judges and police unions play big roles behind the scenes, and often convictions are obtained to “throw a bone.” This is why they target the money and have targeted the money all along: police are a big moneysink, and that money is taken directly out of communities. So no goalposts have been shifted. Again this has long been an issue and the rhetoric has evolved to defund the police after many years of lesser reforms failed to accomplish the changes they portended.

That's their platform though. I think it's high time the U.S. government(s) did something about their awful police forces, but I don't think that means their obliged to do so in a way specifically approved by BLM. They're not actually in charge.

Broadly speaking this is indeed why cities are being burned. The ones in charge are killing the ones who demand not to be killed.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The people doing the enforcing would largely be the same. DAs and judges and police unions play big roles behind the scenes, and often convictions are obtained to “throw a bone.” This is why they target the money and have targeted the money all along: police are a big moneysink, and that money is taken directly out of communities. So no goalposts have been shifted. Again this has long been an issue and the rhetoric has evolved to defund the police after many years of lesser reforms failed to accomplish the changes they portended.

Okay it's not your goalposts being shifted, but that just goes back to my comment that it's not everyone's end goal [posts]. The measures look like they're designed to combat police brutality (questions of enforcement aside). Many people would see that the end goal for this issue. Where and how money is distributed is a separate issue (not saying unrelated, just separate). BLM may want to fix both of those things with one action of "defund the police" (however likely you think that might be to actually fix things), but other might quite like the police just as they are, just if they were little bit less killy.

My whole point was just that there is not a single "ultimate goal" that everyone agrees one, so how closely a proposal aligns with one specific ultimate goal is not an objective standard for deciding how good the proposal is.

Broadly speaking this is indeed why cities are being burned. The ones in charge are killing the ones who demand not to be killed.

There's not only one way to fix that though, and BLM shouldn't get to decide which is chosen since no-one put them in charge. Again, how closely a proposal matches what they want is not a criterion for judging whether it's the right thing to do or not.

 

[El_Machinae]

Any individual member of the ultra-wealthy class is going to find out that they are at risk of being made example of, and that's actually not very fair. We have known for a while that the pitchforks were coming, and even people sympathetic didn't really know what to do to change things for the better

If the mob is random, it doesn't matter how you voted or who you donated to or even if you've started lawsuits or whatever. The mob doesn't have any quick way of telling if you've been sufficiently useful

 

[Seon]

More reason to change things now rather than inevitably later I say