"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Senethro]

altering a culture that produces more violent criminals, assuming it's correct. who does that altering? in a free country, that's up to the individual communities.

"black" is not a monolithic group. maybe hard to grasp for some, but no really. when you further stratify, you might notice that some subgroups of black people do a lot better with police encounters than others.

nuance will also help notice when police actually are racist, because that does happen too and should also be corrected when it does. but nuance is not something woke likes to use, or even hear about.

How do you know they produce more violent criminals? And just to be clear, is this an absolute measure or a rate?

 

[El_Machinae]

What, by a Republican? That's literally insane

I mean that winning 2024 is more important than replacing Biden. The only exception to that I can see is if (R) careen hard into the Center and Biden degrades at a slightly faster rate.

 

[Birdjaguar]

altering a culture that produces more violent criminals, assuming it's correct. who does that altering? in a free country, that's up to the individual communities.

In the US it is the local and state police for state and local crimes; it is the feds for federal crimes. It is not "up to the community".

Changing a culture happens. Lots of things play a part. Most of those forces are not under anyone's control.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How do you know they produce more violent criminals? And just to be clear, is this an absolute measure or a rate?

i don't know for certain, i was taking it as given in hypothetical similar to you. if it actually is the case, i would expect it to be a rate measure, not an absolute one.

In the US it is the local and state police for state and local crimes; it is the feds for federal crimes. It is not "up to the community".

i don't think police will have much impact on the culture of any community stratified by a category other than "police".

 

[Birdjaguar]

I added to my post.

 

[Lexicus]

unfortunately, this is one of those policy preferences that doesn't have a party to represent it (in us).

For those wondering at home, this is not true. The Democrats in the House have voted to legalize marijuana twice but the Republicans in the Senate will not vote for it.

 

[Berzerker]

Assuming your diagnosis is correct, what is the treatment?

Get rid of the black market in drugs, make them legal starting with the most popular and profitable. That would be a good way to 'defund the police'. Legalize consensual behavior, fewer laws means fewer people killed by cops.

Richard Nixon? Sorry, but he was a Republican.

Joe Biden was in Congress at the time and Democrats ran the House, Nixon's drug war was mild compared to what followed but he was quickly gone and he didn't militarize police, that was under Reagan and Tip O'Neill. Joe stayed around a while to write more drug laws.

The poor?

No knock raids and battering rams aren't used much in wealthy neighborhoods.

Cops kill more poor white people than any other demographic.

Also just want to note, as usual, the "libertarian" justifying murder by uniformed agents of the state

I'm talking about rates, black men commit proportionally more violent crimes so it stands to reason black men would be killed by cops at a higher rate. What murder did I justify?

It's Berzerker's position that Biden (and Harris) have a longer history of using the law to be 'anti-drug' than Trump did, and therefore more complicity. The escalating marijuana arrests under Trump didn't sway that position. Honestly, I have no interest in defending Biden and think he should be replaced ASAP, as long as the candidate can defeat the Trumpier aspects of the Republican party.

Biden was the Democrat's nominee, he won their election. I wouldn't criticize the woke for rejecting Trump, but electing Biden? Did federal arrests escalate? That period saw an increase in trafficking from states with legal pot and other states were demanding the feds do something and I guess they did. That cant compare with a half century of Biden destroying black neighborhoods with his crusade.

 

[warpus]

you can call a dog a chair, but it probably won't cooperate if you try to equate the two.

Frank Herbert would disagree with that assessment of chairs and dogs

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I added to my post.

yeah, it's not feasible to change cultures at will.

still, different cultures produce wildly different outcomes even in the same circumstances, and that's been consistent throughout history. cultures are not equal across all measures, nor are they close. when one group values education to the point of making sacrifices to improve it, while the other punishes other in-group members who perform well in it, you're going to get disparate outcomes. and that's just one example/issue.

Frank Herbert would disagree with that assessment of chairs and dogs

to be fair, i did say "probably"

 

[João III]

No knock raids and battering rams aren't used much in wealthy neighborhoods.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but wouldn't that make sense if the violent criminals are predominantly poor, compared to the white collar crimes, which are going to be nonviolent?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

no knock is frequently used against drugs and such though, and that's not exclusive to the poor.

no knock warrants are given way too freely.

 

[Senethro]

I'm talking about rates, black men commit proportionally more violent crimes so it stands to reason black men would be killed by cops at a higher rate. What murder did I justify?

By saying that it stands to reason, and by implying that it is proportionate, you are kind of justifying it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

By saying that it stands to reason, and by implying that it is proportionate, you are kind of justifying it.

not necessarily justifying it. we can have conclusion where x population does y disproportionate crime rate, and still agree or disagree that police handling that type of crime is appropriate vs not.

 

[El_Machinae]

A positive correlation, even if there's a causal factor, doesn't imply justifying.

Additionally, even if violence is a factor, race would be a confounding factor. All told, I would be surprised if citizen violence wasn't positively correlated with increased policing violence. That positive correlation doesn't need to say anything about the confounding variable, although it's obvious that there could actually be a feedback loop in this case

 

[Lexicus]

This may come as a shock to some people in this thread but the police in this country are not allowed to just kill suspects, even if they are suspected of violent crimes. Which is why the police have to routinely lie and say they felt "threatened" or whatever. I suspect the police also routinely allow people they shoot to die without medical attention so that their victims cannot later testify against them.

 

[Traitorfish]

I feel like I've spent our whole conversation in this thread up til now explaining my answers to these questions. To a certain extent I think that "cancel culture" itself is a right-wing bogeyman.

At what point, in this thread, did I mention "cancel culture"?

Certainly, framing boycotts of media products as attempts to establish a form of totalizing control over all cultural expression is exactly what conservatives argue about "political correctness" on a daily basis.

When have I expressed such a framing?

I also think you are to some extent buying into the conflation between the right to speak and the right to an audience which is a very common characteristic of conservative arguments about these issues.

In what way have I made this conflation?

I don't intend to be pedantic here, but the point I'm trying to hammer home is that you're making all of these dramatic inferences which do not proceed from the argument I have actually made (an argument I laid out in I think fairly reasonable detail here) but from the arguments which you assume I would make if allowed to ramble long enough. By all appearances, you're making these assumptions based not on the content of what I've said but on the cultural posture you take it to imply. If you want to provide another rationale for how you're teasing out these sinister threads from a plainly stated and quite specific argument contained in the linked post, I'm all ears, but I do not see it.

 

[Narz]

What, by a Republican? That's literally insane

Biden has certainly done more damage to minorities over the years w his policies than Trump ever will.

 

[Narz]

By all appearances, you're making these assumptions based not on the content of what I've said but on the cultural posture you take it to imply.

That's what the dude does. You're just noticing this?

 

[João III]

By all appearances, you're making these assumptions based not on the content of what I've said but on the cultural posture you take it to imply.

*pretends to be shocked*

 

[Berzerker]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but wouldn't that make sense if the violent criminals are predominantly poor, compared to the white collar crimes, which are going to be nonviolent?

Drugs complicate the picture, it's a non-violent consensual activity but banning drugs creates a cascade of incentives that can turn a poor area into a violent one. As violent crime caused by the black market in drugs rises more police will show up as the politicians who banned drugs play whack a mole with the pathologies they created.

By saying that it stands to reason, and by implying that it is proportionate, you are kind of justifying it.

I thought we were talking about people killed by cops, murders are a very small subset. Cops kill more people in areas with higher violent crime rates, seems logical to me. If that violent crime was caused by a 50 year long drug war the infrastructure built up by the black market will remain with plenty of blood feuds, but ending Prohibition was followed by 13 years of dropping homicide rates.