The existence of systemic racism in America is a fact, one made patently manifest by a simple observation of our founding document, which we uphold to be the very basis of the rule of law. That is to say, the U.S. Constitution did not tacitly accept the existence of slavery; it both legalized and codified it, and what you're seeing now is just the Nth example of that failure spilling over. Things have not dramatically changed for black people since 1776, or the 1860s, or 1921, or 1964. One need only look to history, objectively, and the facts will speak for themselves.
Furthermore, black people are not terrorists for exercising their constitutional prerogatives to assemble and redress of grievances. In many ways I find their willingness to continually put themselves in harms way imminently more patriotic than those who would shout them down and deny them their rights; I say this as a former service member, who at one point raised his hand and sworn an oath to the constitution. I also say this as a historian who is keenly aware of the parallels between the current movement(s) and the events which led our founding fathers to violently destroy millions of dollars in property (see: tea), an act which we revere them for. If you are concerned about the occasional propensity for violence (and I say occasional because, if you choose to look at the record, the protests have been mostly peaceful across the board), then I would encourage you to look at its source: the police have disproportionately instigated violence, often lethally, against black people in far greater numbers than they do anyone else*, and their continued reaction to protests against that very thing have only caused them to perpetrate even more violence. Telling a person that it's not okay to react violently, after being the subject of intense and unceasing violence for over two-hundred years, is tone deaf, hypocritical, and not constructive in the slightest. Telling a person that they should find a way to peacefully remedy their grievances through legal channels is simultaneously disingenuous and ignorant; there have been peaceful attempts, both inside and outside the 'system' to correct historical wrongs, and they have not worked. The fact that racism exists at all in this country, let alone in such absurdly large numbers, is proof of that. And finally, telling people that there are specific spaces in which they should voice their concerns, and nowhere else, is exactly how we got to this point here, on this message board. If every single public venue or social medium were closed to equitable discourse, nothing would change, and that's why nothing has changed, and continues to not change even as we speak. For over two-hundred years people have turned their backs on an inconvenient topic, because advocating for equity gets in the way of our leisure time. Shame on all of us.
My father retired as a peace officer after 30+ years on the force, and I exited the service after 6 long years in the airborne infantry. I revered my father as a human being, not for the work that he did but for the man that he was; at the end of the day, when he came home, there was nothing 'blue' about him. And in all the years he served our community, I never once heard him represent his duties or responsibilities as anything akin to what I'd done in the service. I was a soldier, and he was not. It was my responsibility to place myself in harm's way, and it was his responsibility to uphold the law, not punish people for wrongdoing - and I never got the sense that he comported himself otherwise. He passed away a year ago this October, from complications due to kidney failure, and that's a shame on multiple fronts; one, because losing a loved one always hurts, but also because we never got to have this kind of conversation face-to-face. I wish that I'd been able to ask him about his stance on the current political climate, and I wish even stronger that he'd have taken my side... but he was old guard, and on the rare occasions that I'm privy to my mother's Facebook account these days - which is absolutely brimming over with his fellow retirees - what I see absolutely disgusts me. Having been freed from their obligation to maintain a respectable character in public spaces, they've almost unanimously adopted attitudes that could charitably be called toxic. There is absolutely no regard for human life to be witnessed among them, especially for others who have transgressed their adoptive political boundaries. If you are not conservative, your life is forfeit. If you are a criminal, or charged as one (with or without due process), your life is forfeit. If you attempt to deprive somebody else of their property, your life is forfeit. And, sadly, this attitude is not an aberration, nor an exception to the rule; it is widely adopted by anyone who looks down upon the BLM movement, or who wishes to voice their support for the imagined 'thin blue line.' It's been said, in the defense of peace officers everywhere, that a few bad apples don't represent the whole bunch. Since this summer began, I've been straining to identify anyone who could categorically be described as a good apple, and I fear I've failed in that regard. Even in the face of wanton violence, perpetrated extrajudicially by authority figures charged with the protection of their community, nobody is standing up to their peers - and worse, they're choosing to defend them instead.
Suffice it to say, the police need to be defunded. They need to be de-militarized and stripped of their continued ability to wield lethal force without repercussion. We ask too much of them, and the proper response is not to overburden them with additional skill sets and equipment training that they can't possibly live up to, but to supplement their responsibility toward the community with people who are better able to proactively address our collective woes. We should certainly not be sending them in, armed like soldiers, to engage the general public when a) 90% of police responses occur after a crime has been committed, and b) only somewhere in the neighborhood of 14% of crimes get solved at all. Adding firearms to otherwise peaceful scenarios can only lead to unnecessary death, something that we should be trying to actively avoid as a society - at all costs.
---
*I can provide you with accurate data, if you're receptive.
The existence of systemic racism in America is a fact
Yes, its called affirmative action.
The only legal form of systematic racism in the USA.
For anything else everyone is equal before the law.
Things have not dramatically changed for black people since 1776, or the 1860s, or 1921, or the 1964. One need only look to history, objectively, and the facts will speak for themselves.
This is a sick disregard of all the achievements of the last century.
Before the law any people of color are equal, EXCEPT that black have the actual benefit of affirmative action.
There is literally no oppression at all.
Telling a person that it's not okay to react violently, after being the subject of intense and unceasing violence for over two-hundred years, is tone deaf, hypocritical, and not constructive in the slightest.
You have to realize that violence is NEVER acceptable.
These disgusting excuses for violence are a total failure to any social harmony.
Jews are hunted for basically thousand of year, are they by your logic suddenly allowed to go around and slap people in the face?
In what kind of messed up world do you want to live in?
Simply put, any person that justifies their violence in a way like you suppose will put themselves in a role that ANYBODY else will dislike them.
Nobody wants to employee a person that justifies violence or insults against other people, and nobody should endure such infraction if you honor human dignity in the slightest.
People that act out like that are criminals and there is no excuse for going ballistic and terrorising your neighborhood because anybody claims oppressions of hundreds of years ago against generations they barely if at all remember.
Its a very dangerous delusion that makes social harmony impossible, as you cannot allow crimes and just wave them away like they dont happen.
Nobody has to "right the wrongs" of the generation before them.
Every life is a blank sleet.
You are not responsible for whatever your parents did and you are in no obligation at all to right whatever somebody claims they did.
And especially nobody is in the right to demand any of that from someone else.
If a person chooses freely on their own mind, thats entirely on themselves to decide.
Making demands and violently enforcing them is just blackmail, criminal and unjust ; such evil acts will be faced by opposition that will only result in more violence, more destruction, more regrets and more demands for the sins that will never be forgiven. Such a cycle needs to be broken as soon as possible and cannot be allowed to exist, as nothing, absolutely nothing positive can prosper in such a way, it just keeps getting worse for everyone involved.
This is an important principle to uphold, as otherwise we can hold millions of years against each other, why stop at the last 200 years? Its arbitrary and pointless to dwell in the past and the grudge against people that mean you no harm is a festering sickness that can never be allowed to manifest, as its just an endless spiral of vengeance, payback and all out war if a country as a whole does that.
Claiming that a group is guilty as a whole is also a problem.
You dont get in jail because your family member committed a crime and you should not be shunned for a lifetime because a family member did something (sadly that is often the case regardless as people do not act according to the law and still resort to vengeance and self-administered justice).
If this gets even expanded not just to the circle of family, but to a group of skin color, the guilt of association becomes yet again a spiral of vengeance and "justified" violence between the groups.
Its exactly what we see with the absolute insanity of violence between races, instead of drawing a line and resorting to the actual reality of the present.
There is no end to violence if people with an unhealthy amount of self-shaming cannot accept that there is no way to have any social harmony as long as people seek constant vengeance and retribution ; any healthy religion teaches that all the way.
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
People have to concentrate on building a positive relationship to each other, instead of embracing violence and mob rule that only seek to single out and destroy whoever is the enemy of the day.
Violence between civilians especially between brothers and sisters of the same nation is despicable, criminal and never justified as an act of aggression.
Yes, its called affirmative action.
The only legal form of systematic racism in the USA.
There is no such thing as reverse racism. The continued denial of actual racism is, in fact, racist in and of itself.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
For anything else everyone is equal before the law.
Theoretically, but not in practice.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
This is a sick disregard of all the achievements of the last century.
Before the law any people of color are equal, EXCEPT that black have the actual benefit of affirmative action.
There is literally no oppression at all.
I have a BA in history from UCLA, and that is probably the lowest accolade among my peers in just this thread. What are your qualifications to be in a superior position of knowledge over me?
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
You have to realize that violence is NEVER acceptable.
These disgusting excuses for violence are a total failure to any social harmony.
...
Simply put, any person that justifies their violence in a way like you suppose will put themselves in a role that ANYBODY else will dislike them.
Nobody wants to employee a person that justifies violence or insults against other people, and nobody should endure such infraction if you honor human dignity in the slightest.
Nobody is advocating for or justifying violence; rather, we are making an attempt to understand its roots. The best way to eliminate violence is not to quash it with more violence, but to prevent it in the first place. This is a major social issue that requires a proactive approach, which cannot happen without a fundamental understanding of the core dynamics at play, or the history of social injustice. What this is patently not is a chicken-or-the-egg scenario; we know which form of violence came first, and it did not spring from the BLM protesters. If you had a vested interest in actually preventing real violence, you should be able to bring yourself to admit this as fact.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
People that act out like that are criminals and there is no excuse for going ballistic and terrorising your neighborhood because anybody claims oppressions of hundreds of years ago against generations they barely if at all remember.
This is a disingenuous take on reality, no doubt being fueled by conservative media outlets (or worse, alt-right conspiracy theories). The protests have been, by and large, mostly peaceful. The occasional Fox News soundbite with a provocative fire raging in the background is not a fair, or realistic, representation of the ongoing movement.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Nobody has to "right the wrongs" of the generation before them.
...
You are not responsible for whatever your parents did and you are in no obligation at all to right whatever somebody claims they did.
And especially nobody is in the right to demand any of that from someone else.
Okay... I don't think anyone believes that 'blood guilt' actually exists, except as a knee-jerk defense to proposed equitable solutions. It's certainly not the same to say that generational poverty, its roots and associated consequences, exists and is patently observable. Black people are suffering as a direct consequence of past injustices, and while it's unfair to hold contemporary Americans accountable (and again, I see nobody advocating such), it doesn't mean we can't enact justice on their behalf. Black people can be raised to a higher station in society without other people (chiefly, whites) losing theirs. Society isn't a zero-sum game, but the perception that it is continues to fuel both personal and systemic racism.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Every life is a blank sleet.
Try explaining that to someone born into poverty.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Its arbitrary and pointless to dwell in the past...
And yet it is critical to observe the past, so that we better understand how we got to this point, and so that we can avoid the errors of the past.
To start, I can totally understand what you and the site staff are trying to aim for. One of the wonderful (and at times, terrifying) things about the internet is the level of anonymity it brings. Without a face or genuine name, people can interact in ways that the politics of the outside world would never otherwise allow. An African American Jew could have a lovely conversation regarding scones with a Neo-Nazi on a baking forum without either of them realizing what had just happened. People in opposed countries at war might give thumbs up to the same youtube comments. A person might unknowingly reblog a video uploaded by their most hated nemesis. Much like a thanksgiving meal, things can reach a certain level of peace and equilibrium as long as politics aren’t brought into the matter.
With that said…
1. While I appreciate that you are short-staffed at the moment, I am curious whether anything has been considered to address that. It doesn’t look like the moderator recruitment thread has been updated in quite some time and starting an active recruitment drive in a more visible area may be useful for filling gaps. Likewise, I’m wondering if the application process has been adjusted to account for the recent difficulties with polarized politics (as I’m assuming that the goal wouldn’t be to recruit a bunch of people who want to police certain political views and turning a total blind eye to others). While it’s been said before, it really does seem that you’ll need additional eyes to maintain the sort of equilibrium you seek and dissuade vigilantism.
2 Edited. While I in no way to believe this to be the case, it is easy to interpret actions taken from a desire to not have thread after thread devolve into largely off-topic arguments as a desire to not want to annoy/alienate or deal with/acknowledge bigoted individuals within the community. When someone’s incendiary statements goad someone into making someone post inappropriate political messages… What’s the plan? Are you willing to accept the unfortunate implications of most responses (implicitly encouraging people to do that more, appearing to favor bigotry or oppose those standing up against it, etc.)? You have talked a lot about being able to make civil communication in a way that doesn’t cause people to dig in their heels but what is the ultimate fate of people who insist upon confrontation?
3. I do want to take time to acknowledge that things have been handled fairly well so far, considering your available resources. Outside of this one thread (and another with a very problematic title… which you changed), I have seen fairly few problems in recent times. While I feel that there are issues worth discussing, the fact that things have been largely moving along as normal is worth noting. Thanks as always.
If people just blame others for their own situation nothing is going to change for them.
Nothing stops any person in the USA to get their ass up each morning and start working, except their own lazy attitude.
If nobody wants to employ you, its probably not racism, nobody wants a person that is just blaming everyone else all the time.
Nobody that is innocent wants to be blamed as a racist, that is degrading, insulting and the person that speaks the branding of racism better be EXTREMELY sure of their verdict, otherwise they just brand themselves as a fool and nobody wants to employ or even be around such people.
I have a BA in history from UCLA, and that is probably the lowest accolade among my peers in just this thread. What are your qualifications to be in a superior position of knowledge over me?
These pathetic implications of undermining a dialog is exactly what people really dislike about your attitude.
I dont know what it is, a form of mental block, narcissism or the some believe of morally superiority, but let me give you that advise (which you are free to ignore), bring your statements and never undermine another persons credibility in such a blatantly cheap and insulting way, the other will always react with disrespect towards you, which eliminates a lot of good will and ultimately kills the entire dialog ; and then only retreat or physical conflict remains, which is exactly what should be avoided in the first place.
----
Many things BLM advocates where tried and tested in Communist Regimes and you can bet it was always done with the best interest in mind, and it failed miserable all the time.
There is just one thing to enforcing equity with violence, and thats the misery of all its people ; so everyone is equally miserable, as its impossible to archive a state that is just wonderful for everyone, scarcity of resources prevent that from happening (we will have to wait for some kind of Star Trek Replicator to become reality, till then its a market of scarce resources in every way, and whoever can deliver what is needed, gets the benefits from doing so).
----
Equality of opportunity is the goal that is archive able, manageable and positive to everyone.
Equity is not a goal worth pursuing, as not everyone is capable to do everything and everyone is mainly responsible for their own life and prosperity.
If somebody is just worse at school compared to someone else, that might just how it is, and people better make the best out of their situation and carve themselves a way away from bad influence.
People that knowingly stay in bad influence and blame only others are at fault themselves.
People that do not do that will always find a way to better themselves and by doing so uplift their family and their surroundings.
The constant barrage of screeching outside induced shaming and flagellating leads only to festering depressions and hopelessness.
People that are always told they are victims will not prosper, even if they could, as they will not find the will to even try in the first place.
If people are rewarded for blaming others, dragging them down with them, its the worst outcome for everyone if depression becomes the norm.
If a entire nation becomes depressed, nothing becomes better, everything gets worse.
----
Even in the face of wanton violence, perpetrated extrajudicially by authority figures charged with the protection of their community, nobody is standing up to their peers - and worse, they're choosing to defend them instead.
Police is put in charge to enforce the law.
If people are going to be arrested its expected from them to let them arrest without violence.
In that case no violence is needed.
Only if the person is acting out, force is used.
Police Officers are at risk for themselves, people surrounding the area and still have to act according to regulations.
Suspects are often under drugs or have mental problems that make them act rash and dangerous.
A person might at any moment act out, run away, disregarding any traffic or other people ; that is to be avoided at all cost.
If police fails to do so, we end up with people that flee an arrest, take a hostage, blindly run in traffic to lead to crashes and potentially people dying that have nothing to do with the person to be arrested.
The reasonable way in any police interaction is to be calm, follow orders and not act aggressive in any way ; thats the only way to ensure that nothing gets out of control for anybody (and in these cases chances are basically 0% that anything happens to the police or the person being arrested).
The current mindset that people have to defend themselves with all means against the police just because they are arrested leads to all the misery and conflict we see right now and at any moment in the latest history.
Police are people too, they make mistakes, they have a bad day, and they might even in the most dire circumstances be criminals themselves (and lets face it, the vast vast majority is not, but BLM is actively trying to paint a picture that every police officer is the enemy of mankind itself).
And like always, the bad apples spoil the entire basket.
That is true for the police like it is for protesters and every person on this planet.
Defunding the police like it is currently done is actively producing more crimes, more violence, even death and murder.
If the police is labeled the enemy as it currently is, the people have no defenders and law cannot be uphold, absolute chaos and destruction are the result ; and thats just terrible for everyone (and nothing positive is coming out of that, its bad for everyone and there are no winners, only losers, dead people that pile up and a growing hate in people against each other).
If BLM wants to do anything positive at all, they should focus on reducing crime.
With less crime, less police are needed.
With less crime you get less potentially dangerous conflicts with the police.
For not even a second people should believe that a poor white family has even a glimmer of advantage over a poor black family.
Sadly enough poor families tend to have criminal male fathers, single moms, drugs and lots of other misery involved, that just gets worse and worse if there is nobody like the police around that actually provides a form of enforcing the law for the people that are in desperate need of it.
BLMs priorities are not reasonable.
They want to focus entirely on a problem of police violence that is so minuscule compared to the rampant crimes produced by drugs and many years of destructive family politics.
And under the mantle of BLM plenty of very dangerous ideologies manifest themselves.
Destructive ideas and agendas that bring many more problems with them as they try to solve.
If DefundThePolice only results in more crime and violence, than no rational person can advocate for that.
2. In this era of purity testing, I can understand (but do not necessarily agree with) the concern that some people have… especially during the pandemic, when people may not have full access to their offline support systems. I personally do not feel that I need to boycott any bakery or grocery store that has allowed neo-nazis to buy things there. I don’t care if bigots make use of my preferred car wash if they aren’t actively bothering people while they are there. I personally feel that imposing such purity requirements (outside of specific areas/cases with VERY real and imminent safety concerns) is kind of absurd as most stores won’t recognize bigots… and because certain marginalizing views encapsulated in tags like all lives matter or blue lives matter seem to have found their ways into mainstream party narratives… but other people very much DO hold those purity standards.
For the record, the "purity test" here is that a contingent of posters don't want to see bigoted attitudes shared on the forums without challenge (or, if egregious enough, moderator action). Is that unreasonable? I ask because the phrase "purity test" is usually thrown around as a way to frame advocacy around higher standards as unreasonable.
As well, it is important to note that this forum isn't like a shop or a car wash, it's a place where opinions, ideas, and discussion are encouraged and platformed. There ought to be different standards for behavior, lest the forum become a space that's unwelcoming for some - it's why the forum has rules and moderation of behavior at all. This is more akin to allowing homophobic street preachers use your space to spread their hate and ignorance (he said, three blocks from a local business doing exactly that right this minute), and telling counter protesters they can't pushback or say anything without actions taken by your business to stop them.
At the end of the day, it is easy to interpret actions taken from a desire to not have thread after thread devolve into largely off-topic arguments as a desire to not want to annoy/alienate or deal with/acknowledge bigoted individuals within the community. When someone’s incendiary statements goad someone into making someone post inappropriate political messages… What’s the plan? Are you willing to accept the unfortunate implications of most responses (implicitly encouraging people to do that more, appearing to favor bigotry or oppose those standing up against it, etc.) You have talked a lot about being able to make civil communication in a way that doesn’t cause people to dig in their heels but what is the ultimate fate of people who refuse to accept anything less than actively removing everyone with problematic views from the forum (whether by bans or through harassment)?
I think your first question is an important one, it's something I've been thinking about as well. Your second question, though, is framed oddly. Do you you think its the position of the people advocating in this thread that people with alt-right/bigoted views should just be removed from the site by bans or harassment? Anyone who feels otherwise can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that we're pushing for more leeway to actively engage in good faith discussion (so long as it remains respectful). The bigots can stay, it's their bigotry that ought to go and there's value in giving space to posters to engage and challenge those views, demonstrate support for marginalized people, and help give people (whether people actively engaged in the discussion or viewing it as a lurker) something to think about. Many people in this site's presumed userbase (predominantly young, predominantly white, majorly male) have expressed that space to actively engaged concepts openly and without condemnation helped them get out of the alt-right's gravitational pull. Whole articles have been written about the phenomenon (particularly in the case of YouTubers, Tik Tok-ers, and other social media avenues of educating/debating a topic).
Simply removing people because they have problematic views is a waste of an opportunity to engage and educate - if not that poster, than the many watching the conversation who may share similar opinions.
@mikeyG: I apologize if I lost the train of conversation for a bit (will edit original post). I apologize for speaking out of turn. To be fair, you have been the only person mentioning "good faith" discussion so far (at least by name). With that said, I have a hard time imagining what a good faith discussion would even look like. When you start the conversation with the presumption that one side is more "correct" than the other, the "incorrect" side has little reason to buy in and engage in that conversation.
Whatever is discussed in this thread, I can imagine no future in which a discussion here allows one side to argue "their side" of why a given orientation or gender identity is "unnatural" or why a given ethnicity/race should be exported. Instead, the conversation will inevitably consist of one side trying to provide facts and the other side relentlessly trying to poke holes in those facts. In fact, just look at the exchanges regarding the very existence of structural racism and the origins of the BLM movement on this very thread. One person provided a bevy of resources... and the other person apparently ignores them.
As a culture (at least in the USA), we are at a point where the nature and origin of FACTS is a political issue and science is seen as "only part of the story".
If you feel that there are some moderates on this site or people who may be going with the flow without giving things personal thought, I can respect that. If politics is opened up as an acceptable topic, however, I don't know how the needed conversations can realistically take place between people mindlessly shouting the exact same points past one another on loop. I would expect people to treat those threads as contests to be "won" by sharing the right information rather than a space to gain information.
Edit: I apologize for overlooking the articles that you refer to regarding giving people a safe place to engage without condemnation. Need to work harder on that reading comprehension. With that said, I stick by what I say when I think that a lot of people would blindly talk past one another. I honestly feel that type of conversation would need some careful (likely mod-intensive) curation. For example, allowing people to PM questions and concerns to be presented anonymously as opening statements, giving time for people on both sides to anonymously submit whatever information or arguments support their own side, and having someone coordinate that info into a second (and possibly third) post. No direct posts from any users. No devolution into personal insults getting posts scrubbed or threads locked. No pages upon pages of people shouting the same thing back and forth in an attempt to out-argue each other. The facts and arguments go up... and there it is.
2. In this era of purity testing, I can understand (but do not necessarily agree with) the concern that some people have… especially during the pandemic, when people may not have full access to their offline support systems. I personally do not feel that I need to boycott any bakery or grocery store that has allowed neo-nazis to buy things there. I don’t care if bigots make use of my preferred car wash if they aren’t actively bothering people while they are there. I personally feel that imposing such purity requirements (outside of specific areas/cases with VERY real and imminent safety concerns) is kind of absurd as most stores won’t recognize bigots… and because certain marginalizing views encapsulated in tags like all lives matter or blue lives matter seem to have found their ways into mainstream party narratives… but other people very much DO hold those purity standards.
For the record, the "purity test" here is that a contingent of posters don't want to see bigoted attitudes shared on the forums without challenge (or, if egregious enough, moderator action). Is that unreasonable? I ask because the phrase "purity test" is usually thrown around as a way to frame advocacy around higher standards as unreasonable.
As well, it is important to note that this forum isn't like a shop or a car wash, it's a place where opinions, ideas, and discussion are encouraged and platformed. There ought to be different standards for behavior, lest the forum become a space that's unwelcoming for some - it's why the forum has rules and moderation of behavior at all. This is more akin to allowing homophobic street preachers use your space to spread their hate and ignorance (he said, three blocks from a local business doing exactly that right this minute), and telling counter protesters they can't pushback or say anything without actions taken by your business to stop them.
At the end of the day, it is easy to interpret actions taken from a desire to not have thread after thread devolve into largely off-topic arguments as a desire to not want to annoy/alienate or deal with/acknowledge bigoted individuals within the community. When someone’s incendiary statements goad someone into making someone post inappropriate political messages… What’s the plan? Are you willing to accept the unfortunate implications of most responses (implicitly encouraging people to do that more, appearing to favor bigotry or oppose those standing up against it, etc.) You have talked a lot about being able to make civil communication in a way that doesn’t cause people to dig in their heels but what is the ultimate fate of people who refuse to accept anything less than actively removing everyone with problematic views from the forum (whether by bans or through harassment)?
I think your first question is an important one, it's something I've been thinking about as well. Your second question, though, is framed oddly. Do you you think its the position of the people advocating in this thread that people with alt-right/bigoted views should just be removed from the site by bans or harassment? Anyone who feels otherwise can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that we're pushing for more leeway to actively engage in good faith discussion (so long as it remains respectful). The bigots can stay, it's their bigotry that ought to go and there's value in giving space to posters to engage and challenge those views, demonstrate support for marginalized people, and help give people (whether people actively engaged in the discussion or viewing it as a lurker) something to think about. Many people in this site's presumed userbase (predominantly young, predominantly white, majorly male) have expressed that space to actively engaged concepts openly and without condemnation helped them get out of the alt-right's gravitational pull. Whole articles have been written about the phenomenon (particularly in the case of YouTubers, Tik Tok-ers, and other social media avenues of educating/debating a topic).
Simply removing people because they have problematic views is a waste of an opportunity to engage and educate - if not that poster, than the many watching the conversation who may share similar opinions.
Thank you.
I've not heard of the position that businesses should be boycotted for serving neo-Nazis. If this is a real thing that people have advocated for, how charitable is it to interpret the intent of this proposal to go on a witch hunt against any and all businesses that may have accidentally served neo-Nazis? I find that unlikely. Now if there is some obvious way of knowing that someone is a neo-Nazi (and I think there are some clear indicators), it might be reasonable to expect the business to refuse service for much the same reason we expect people to not cross picket lines during a strike. I also would like to add that, just because one individual wouldn't be bothered by a neo-Nazi patronizing a car wash at the same time as them does not mean it would be unreasonable for another individual, especially belonging to one of the groups neo-Nazis target, to be uncomfortable. You not being uncomfortable in that situation of the neo-Nazi merely being there just means you have a higher threshold of tolerance to neo-Nazis, which could be granted by any number of things (I hesitate to mention privilege because of its overzealous invocation in political discussion nowadays, but it seems to apply here).
I also firmly condemn the idea of harassing people with problematic views. What I am in favor of is those views being criticized adequately in terms of their substance so that the problem they are 'problematic' about gets resolved. Likewise, banning on the basis of views alone would seem like an excessive measure. People who have problematic views are prevalent on these forums. I believe the most effective way of dealing with this is to have the community involved as a whole in delineating what views are unacceptable on a more informal basis with moderators providing broad guidance. In other words, a community-building activity. In this thread we already have the example of someone claiming that systemic racism doesn't exist except against white people, which is not the first time this person has made that claim. Presumably, nothing will convince him otherwise. I'm comfortable with allowing this view to be discussed without bannings because, on account of its fundamental irrationality, it is easy to refute. That doesn't necessarily change its rhetorical sway among those predisposed to find it a compelling argument, but every time this comes up and it is refuted there is a small increase in clarity among the background audience. Irrational views can only take root in murkiness of thought, and the internet has a lot of potential to bring clarity to broad audiences. But when discussion is shut down two things happen: those irrational views fester with resentment and become more dangerous, and greater clarity is not attained. More clarity means more agreement, so we can go back to disagreeing about Magic cards.
@mikeyG: I apologize if I lost the train of conversation for a bit (will edit original post). I apologize for speaking out of turn. To be fair, you have been the only person mentioning "good faith" discussion so far (at least by name). With that said, I have a hard time imagining what a good faith discussion would even look like. When you start the conversation with the presumption that one side is more "correct" than the other, the "incorrect" side has little reason to buy in and engage in that conversation.
I don't think you were out of turn, I just wan't clear on what you were saying. I think a good faith discussion is one where people give legitimate consideration to the points raised and reasoning provided and don't simply use the opportunity to proselytize or attack people.
I don't disagree with your latter point, and I think that comes with time. It may never come, honestly, though I still think there's value in trying to facilitate that. I literally teach pro-SJW topics in small, rural communities in a particularly conservative province and I have been yelled at, had slurs shouted at me, and I've been threatened (down to being doxxed and having fake dating profiles created to paint me as sexual pervert/pedophile). Doesn't stop me from trying to educate and empathize, if anything it just makes the successes all the sweeter. And those successes start with not assuming people are too entrenched in the opinions to be reached, that may be true for some, but not for all. It just takes the right approach. Questions over accusations, empathy over condemnation, engagement over judgment.
Whatever is discussed in this thread, I can imagine no future in which a discussion here allows one side to argue "their side" of why a given orientation or gender identity is "unnatural" or why a given ethnicity/race should be exported. Instead, the conversation will inevitably consist of one side trying to provide facts and the other side relentlessly trying to poke holes in those facts. In fact, just look at the exchanges regarding the very existence of structural racism and the origins of the BLM movement on this very thread. One person provided a bevy of resources... and the other person apparently ignores them.
Which I would argue is not engaging in the conversation in good faith. And it is worth pointing out that while individual posters may refuse to engage in reading resources/studies/etc, others (be they active participants or lurkers) will.
As a culture (at least in the USA), we are at a point where the nature and origin of FACTS is a political issue and science is seen as "only part of the story".
Haha, given what I heard today from the street preacher I mentioned upthread, it's not just the USA.
It can be exhausting to engage with people who refuse to entertain facts, but it can be done. It's a matter of understanding them on a human level and meeting them where they're at. Challenging? Yes. Frustrating? Oh **** is it ever. Possible? Absolutely. But it is why I prefer to be paid because it is significant effort, so I understand why it's daunting in a community like this where the labor is unpaid.
If you feel that there are some moderates on this site or people who may be going with the flow without giving things personal thought, I can respect that. If politics is opened up as an acceptable topic, however, I don't know how the needed conversations can realistically take place between people mindlessly shouting the exact same points past one another on loop. I would expect people to treat those threads as contests to be "won" by sharing the right information rather than a space to gain information.
For what it's worth, I think a lot of the posters on the site are likely not finished baking, politically-speaking. And even those who have more firmly-defined political opinions are able to change. Your mileage may vary on the likelihood of that change, but if I can get people in rural Alberta to understand that trans people aren't evil, deranged, and/or dangerous, I believe people on MTGS can be reached about topics of bigotry.
On the realistic probability of these conversations happening in a productive way, I share your concerns. Posters can barely express an opinion (positive or negative) about a card, set, or deck without someone trying to prove them wrong and the community has developed a toxic reputation as a result. But we've had room for these conversations before, the key ingredient is role modeling behavior and moderating/facilitating with finesse. This community can absolutely do that.
If people just blame others for their own situation nothing is going to change for them.
The American myth of the rugged individual, the self-made man, is just that: a myth. The unspoken truth about capitalism is that in order for there to be winners, there must be losers. The poverty cycle is real, the wage gap is real, and systemic racism is real. People suffer because of the circumstances they are born into, and the obstacles that society places before them, not always just the choices they consciously make for themselves.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Nothing stops any person in the USA to get their ass up each morning and start working, except their own lazy attitude.
And the people who work three jobs just to get by, what sage advice do you have for them?
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Nobody that is innocent wants to be blamed as a racist, that is degrading, insulting and the person that speaks the branding of racism better be EXTREMELY sure of their verdict, otherwise they just brand themselves as a fool and nobody wants to employ or even be around such people.
You're absolutely right, it's a hard pill to swallow, but if you don't want to be called racist... then don't be racist. I understand that our natural tendency as human beings is to be defensive when confronted with a hard truth, but you ultimately have two choices; deny that truth, or grow as a human being. For my part, I admit that it is extremely difficult to facilitate these conversations for just that reason. Before you can be honest with me, though, you have to be honest with yourself.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
These pathetic implications of undermining a dialog is exactly what people really dislike about your attitude.
I would argue that the only thing undermining our dialogue (if it can truly be called that) is your tenuous grasp of history and sociology. You have my credentials, I gave you an opportunity to air yours. In all sincerity, I would really like to know where you get your information from. The fact that you keep dodging the subject is... telling?
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
I dont know what it is, a form of mental block, narcissism or the some believe of morally superiority, but let me give you that advise (which you are free to ignore), bring your statements and never undermine another persons credibility in such a blatantly cheap and insulting way, the other will always react with disrespect towards you, which eliminates a lot of good will and ultimately kills the entire dialog ; and then only retreat or physical conflict remains, which is exactly what should be avoided in the first place.
I can support any assertion that I make with evidence if / when called upon to do so, and I expect my argumentative partners to be able to do the same. It is not unfair, given the fact that we are debating facts well within my wheelhouse, to ask where you get your information from. If you choose to shy away when confronted with a simple question, then you really can't blame anyone else for sabotaging your position.
In all honesty, I applaud your bravery for posting here. You've chosen to engage a thread full of people who are highly educated on the subject, and my hope is that you take something valuable away from it.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Many things BLM advocates where tried and tested in Communist Regimes and you can bet it was always done with the best interest in mind, and it failed miserable all the time.
This whole 'antifa' thing I keep hearing about reeks of McCarthyism; another good reason for us to observe history, I think. If you can substantiate a comparison between BLM and communism, I'd love to hear it. Do you have a link for me?
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Equality of opportunity is the goal that is archive able, manageable and positive to everyone.
Equity is not a goal worth pursuing, as not everyone is capable to do everything and everyone is mainly responsible for their own life and prosperity.
I'm not sure why you think being equal trumps being fair, or that fairness isn't a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. Maybe we just hold different values, and my values include caring about other people as much as I care about myself. Does that make me less American? I'm starting to think it does.
I will no doubt be the umpteenth person to share this simple fact with you here: equity is a precursor to equality, and thus you cannot have the latter without the former. The entire point of the BLM movement is that the inertia of history has made equality all but impossible to achieve in a single generation; we must take measured steps to rectify the mistakes of the past, which continue to ripple through modern society.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
If somebody is just worse at school compared to someone else, that might just how it is, and people better make the best out of their situation and carve themselves a way away from bad influence.
That's the common argument against equity programs, but it fails to take into account the barriers that people face in their daily lives, barriers which they often have absolutely no control over. We are not born in a vacuum.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
The constant barrage of screeching outside induced shaming and flagellating leads only to festering depressions and hopelessness.
... what? Seriously... what?
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Police is put in charge to enforce the law.
If people are going to be arrested its expected from them to let them arrest without violence.
In that case no violence is needed.
Only if the person is acting out, force is used.
The mentality that the police are 'in charge' is the exact sort of carte blanche that puts them above the law. They are not in charge so much as they are endowed with certain responsibilities toward their respective communities, responsibilities which this summer has demonstrated they are woefully ill equipped to fulfill. There are civil rights which cops are obligated to respect and adhere to in the line of duty, even when - or especially when - initiating an arrest, because even the courts sometimes admit that cops don't always act in good faith. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that champions of the police and the 'thin blue line,' the people who consider themselves the most patriotic, are the ones so eager and willing to concede their rights (and those of others) for absolutely no good reason at all.
Have we been watching the same videos all summer? Because I've seen a lot of grotesque and unnecessary deaths at the hands of police officers, straight from their own body cams. No, violence is not needed, and the bar for lethal response needs to be raised to the highest possible standard.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Police Officers are at risk for themselves, people surrounding the area and still have to act according to regulations.
It's a job, and if they can't handle it they should quit. I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who intentionally places themselves in harms way because we've empowered them to shoot their way out of a bad situation that could have been avoided in the first place. And if they're not concerned enough about the mortal consequences of their actions, they should at least be concerned about the legal and civil consequences, which as of right now are virtually nonexistent.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Suspects are often under drugs or have mental problems that make them act rash and dangerous.
An excellent reason to move funding away from military equipment for the police and toward people who are qualified to manage these situations without an assault rifle. Drugs and mental illness simply do not rise to the level of concern that warrants being executed on the street.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
A person might at any moment act out, run away, disregarding any traffic or other people ; that is to be avoided at all cost.
If police fails to do so, we end up with people that flee an arrest, take a hostage, blindly run in traffic to lead to crashes and potentially people dying that have nothing to do with the person to be arrested.
Slippery slope fallacies like these are the reason we train officers to imagine that they could be killed at any moment, the unfortunate consequence of which is a frequent escalation of force in situations that never should have warranted it. The truth is that 90% of police responses occur after a crime has been committed, and there is no longer an ongoing danger to the officer or the victims. Why, then, do they need to drag an SUV full of combat equipment around with them everywhere? I'll tell you why: because we still haven't gotten past the specter of the Hollywood shootout that occurred over 20 years ago. Legislation passed in the aftermath of that notorious event proved that the solution to gun violence isn't more guns, it's actually less guns... and yet here we are.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
The reasonable way in any police interaction is to be calm, follow orders and not act aggressive in any way ; thats the only way to ensure that nothing gets out of control for anybody (and in these cases chances are basically 0% that anything happens to the police or the person being arrested).
*sigh*
Google Daniel Shaver, watch the body cam footage, and then come tell me if you still feel that way.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Police are people too, they make mistakes, they have a bad day...
I really don't think the police need you to make excuses on their behalf. Their entire job is to make good decisions under stress, decisions that are supposed to protect lives and safeguard the community. If they can't do that they should quit before they endanger themselves or others, or be prepared to face serious legal and civil repercussions. There is simply no excuse for poor performance when it costs other people their lives.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Defunding the police like it is currently done is actively producing more crimes, more violence, even death and murder.
If the police is labeled the enemy as it currently is, the people have no defenders and law cannot be uphold, absolute chaos and destruction are the result ; and thats just terrible for everyone (and nothing positive is coming out of that, its bad for everyone and there are no winners, only losers, dead people that pile up and a growing hate in people against each other).
Do you know what 'blue flu' is? Probably not, because every time it happens, the world doesn't devolve into chaos. Defunding the police and channeling that money back into the community will go considerably further towards preventing future crime than arming police officers with combat weapons ever will.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
If BLM wants to do anything positive at all, they should focus on reducing crime.
With less crime, less police are needed.
With less crime you get less potentially dangerous conflicts with the police.
I agree... and I suspect so do most BLM protesters, but I also fear you're coming dangerously close to either spinning them as terrorists again, or laying the foundation for a 'black on black violence' argument. If you really want to know why crime exists in such high numbers in impoverished areas, or why it's tracked at all, we can have that conversation too.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
For not even a second people should believe that a poor white family has even a glimmer of advantage over a poor black family.
They should, because privilege is a patently observable phenomenon.
Have you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Harper Lee is a phenomenal writer. Can't say I recommend the followup, though.
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »
Sadly enough poor families tend to have criminal male fathers, single moms, drugs and lots of other misery involved, that just gets worse and worse if there is nobody like the police around that actually provides a form of enforcing the law for the people that are in desperate need of it.
BLMs priorities are not reasonable.
They want to focus entirely on a problem of police violence that is so minuscule compared to the rampant crimes produced by drugs and many years of destructive family politics.
Ah, here we go. The old tried and true 'it's not their skin color, it's their culture' argument. It's still racist, because it completely ignores all of the systemic factors that lead to a power imbalance in society.
Perhaps the single most constructive thing Ben Shapiro has ever done is read the lyrics to WAP, because at least that made me laugh.
Hey guys, I'd like to keep things a bit on topic here, or at least, set a direction.
Our goal here should be in looking at how to best structure what kind of discussion should be had on the site, and how to respond to such things when they do arise, and how to prevent these things from disturbing the discussions about Magic.
Since this discussion is inherently political, and will require definitions and even discussions of current events in order to support or explain positions, I accept that there will be inherent political discussion in this thread - but please try to keep the end goal of how this can tie into the improvement of the site at least somewhere in mind. What I would like to avoid is simply having a migration of Political Debate into this thread, where it might drown out others who have questions or input for the site.
Thank you.
I'll try to read through and address the more political posts a bit later.
To start, I can totally understand what you and the site staff are trying to aim for. One of the wonderful (and at times, terrifying) things about the internet is the level of anonymity it brings. Without a face or genuine name, people can interact in ways that the politics of the outside world would never otherwise allow. An African American Jew could have a lovely conversation regarding scones with a Neo-Nazi on a baking forum without either of them realizing what had just happened. People in opposed countries at war might give thumbs up to the same youtube comments. A person might unknowingly reblog a video uploaded by their most hated nemesis. Much like a thanksgiving meal, things can reach a certain level of peace and equilibrium as long as politics aren’t brought into the matter.
With that said…
1. While I appreciate that you are short-staffed at the moment, I am curious whether anything has been considered to address that. It doesn’t look like the moderator recruitment thread has been updated in quite some time and starting an active recruitment drive in a more visible area may be useful for filling gaps. Likewise, I’m wondering if the application process has been adjusted to account for the recent difficulties with polarized politics (as I’m assuming that the goal wouldn’t be to recruit a bunch of people who want to police certain political views and turning a total blind eye to others). While it’s been said before, it really does seem that you’ll need additional eyes to maintain the sort of equilibrium you seek and dissuade vigilantism.
2 Edited. While I in no way to believe this to be the case, it is easy to interpret actions taken from a desire to not have thread after thread devolve into largely off-topic arguments as a desire to not want to annoy/alienate or deal with/acknowledge bigoted individuals within the community. When someone’s incendiary statements goad someone into making someone post inappropriate political messages… What’s the plan? Are you willing to accept the unfortunate implications of most responses (implicitly encouraging people to do that more, appearing to favor bigotry or oppose those standing up against it, etc.)? You have talked a lot about being able to make civil communication in a way that doesn’t cause people to dig in their heels but what is the ultimate fate of people who insist upon confrontation?
3. I do want to take time to acknowledge that things have been handled fairly well so far, considering your available resources. Outside of this one thread (and another with a very problematic title… which you changed), I have seen fairly few problems in recent times. While I feel that there are issues worth discussing, the fact that things have been largely moving along as normal is worth noting. Thanks as always.
Thank you Rosy Dumplings for joining the thread!
What you have said is the hopeful ideal, and what we hope to strive for. We do know that ideals are often just that - ideal, however I feel it is important to still strive and aim for that ideal, even while we must keep our sights, and respect, on reality.
1 - We have attempted to revitalize the recruitment threads, as well as post some new threads in areas that are also lacking. Sadly, this kind of 'passive' recruitment has not yielded any results, as people are more likely to simply gloss over them. We have been in discussion as to how to best take a more active recruitment role, and the Rumor Mill is currently our top priority for it. We hope to reach out to several prominent members of the Community, and solicit some feedback and recommendations from them. We have also reached out to several users for nominations of other prominent members who are active, who we will then reach out to with the same request for feedback, ideas, and nominations.
We hope to use this information to identify and build up a kind of 'map' of active users who care about the community and are well respected within the community; from there we will reach out to several that stand out, and see if they would be receptive to taking a more active role.
This process is a new idea, so we're still working through it and learning as we reach out, but our hope is that this will lead to finding someone passionate, respected, and committed to the community.
2- This is always the difficulty of discussions overall, and especially over the internet. While I would love that everyone be able to approach every conversation calmly and politely - the truth is that not all people do. As moderators, our tools are a bit limited. From the punitive side, we have the ability to infract users, or remove them from the site, either temporarily or permanently. Punitive actions however, are not the best way to change behavior.
I believe this is where the staff, myself included, can improve more. When discussions veer off course and get heated, we still need to step in and take actions to correct the course if possible, or close the thread if needed and other courses don't work. We do still need to issue warnings and tickets to language that crosses the line.
Where I feel we can improve is our language and messaging when these actions take place. Explaining why a thread gets closed, or why a certain position or line is not acceptable. Rather than handing out simple punitive measures, to ensure that our actions are also educational to the best of our abilities. This can be difficult, as this takes more effort and time - but I believe this would be a good and necessary step.
3- Thank you for your kind words. It is good to know that we are having a positive impact, even if we realize that their is always room for improvement.
Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »
Quote from bobthefunny »
You are correct H3RAC71TU5 that the views of the staff do not have a direct bearing to the site,
Well, let's not get carried away.
What I meant is that while each staff member obviously has their own views and biases, this should ideally not impact their capability to enforce the rules and views of the site, or to act with respect and dignity towards others, even when those views or biases might be challenged on a personal level.
What you have said is the hopeful ideal, and what we hope to strive for. We do know that ideals are often just that - ideal, however I feel it is important to still strive and aim for that ideal, even while we must keep our sights, and respect, on reality.
1 - We have attempted to revitalize the recruitment threads, as well as post some new threads in areas that are also lacking. Sadly, this kind of 'passive' recruitment has not yielded any results, as people are more likely to simply gloss over them. We have been in discussion as to how to best take a more active recruitment role, and the Rumor Mill is currently our top priority for it. We hope to reach out to several prominent members of the Community, and solicit some feedback and recommendations from them. We have also reached out to several users for nominations of other prominent members who are active, who we will then reach out to with the same request for feedback, ideas, and nominations.
We hope to use this information to identify and build up a kind of 'map' of active users who care about the community and are well respected within the community; from there we will reach out to several that stand out, and see if they would be receptive to taking a more active role.
This process is a new idea, so we're still working through it and learning as we reach out, but our hope is that this will lead to finding someone passionate, respected, and committed to the community.
2- This is always the difficulty of discussions overall, and especially over the internet. While I would love that everyone be able to approach every conversation calmly and politely - the truth is that not all people do. As moderators, our tools are a bit limited. From the punitive side, we have the ability to infract users, or remove them from the site, either temporarily or permanently. Punitive actions however, are not the best way to change behavior.
I believe this is where the staff, myself included, can improve more. When discussions veer off course and get heated, we still need to step in and take actions to correct the course if possible, or close the thread if needed and other courses don't work. We do still need to issue warnings and tickets to language that crosses the line.
Where I feel we can improve is our language and messaging when these actions take place. Explaining why a thread gets closed, or why a certain position or line is not acceptable. Rather than handing out simple punitive measures, to ensure that our actions are also educational to the best of our abilities. This can be difficult, as this takes more effort and time - but I believe this would be a good and necessary step.
I'm interested in what the educational approach by moderators would look like. Rosy Dumplings proposed a solution of submitting arguments to moderators to parse out as a third party. What I've proposed is much more informal and allows posters to engage directly with content.
Generally when a post is reported, there's an option for a small comment on the report, correct? If moderators direct us to place our remarks in the report with the understanding that some of this content will be represented by the moderator's actions in the thread, this would be a great improvement. Ideally, I would still like to engage with direct discussion. Or at least, for forum members to be able to discuss the reported content. If there was some kind of option to open up a public report for discussion which would flag on a post and be approved by a moderator to generate a new thread (or some other thread-like medium) clickable from the original post (blocking quotability), and in which the reported person is permitted to offer a defense, I see this solving several problems. With respect to the difficulty for moderators to generate an educational response, they can reference the discussion of the issue and represent the general premises in that discussion in moderator remarks. The original thread would remain clean of off-topic posts. And the community gets to be involved in discussions. This might mean a more moderation-intense form of discourse but there could be higher standards set in place for the format. Participation in public reports would be treated as a privilege, requiring a certain length of membership to prevent sock puppets, rescinded by a community mechanism (but reinstate-able by moderators) to discourage misbehavior so that moderator workload is kept as light as possible. Moderators would need to stay on top of the requests to open public reports so that discussion doesn't spill out into the original thread but could let discussion in the public report proceed for up to two days before weighing in.
Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »
Quote from bobthefunny »
You are correct H3RAC71TU5 that the views of the staff do not have a direct bearing to the site,
Well, let's not get carried away.
What I meant is that while each staff member obviously has their own views and biases, this should ideally not impact their capability to enforce the rules and views of the site, or to act with respect and dignity towards others, even when those views or biases might be challenged on a personal level.
If that makes sense?
Yep! Impartiality is an important ideal but it can be hard to achieve in practice.
After looking more into the history of the #BlueLivesMatter movement, how it has been used, and how it is culturally understood, we are allowing slogans of #BlueLivesMatter as a statement of solidarity to slain police officers and as a statement of support for our uniformed officers.
While we understand and are sensitive that #BlueLivesMatter has been coopted as a counter-movement, and can be used dismissively in counter to #BLM, we feel that the Movement itself is not explicitly a counter-movement based on its history and formation. Just as we do not hold how other groups have coopted #BLM in ways that do not reflect upon the primary movement, so too should the coopted uses of the #BlueLivesMatter not be held against the movement itself.
Context will of course matter in all situations. Using any slogan in a manner to incite aggression, dismiss others, or otherwise harass, troll, or violate our policies will not be supported.
This is a complicated topic, and the decisions made regarding it are nuanced. We are receptive to hearing any feedback from our users, especially to how they are affected by these topics and statements. If you have any concerns, please let members of the staff know your concerns or how these statements affect you or reflect your own experiences.
After looking more into the history of the #BlueLivesMatter movement, how it has been used, and how it is culturally understood, we are allowing slogans of #BlueLivesMatter as a statement of solidarity to slain police officers and as a statement of support for our uniformed officers.
While we understand and are sensitive that #BlueLivesMatter has been coopted as a counter-movement, and can be used dismissively in counter to #BLM, we feel that the Movement itself is not explicitly a counter-movement based on its history and formation. Just as we do not hold how other groups have coopted #BLM in ways that do not reflect upon the primary movement, so too should the coopted uses of the #BlueLivesMatter not be held against the movement itself.
Context will of course matter in all situations. Using any slogan in a manner to incite aggression, dismiss others, or otherwise harass, troll, or violate our policies will not be supported.
This is a complicated topic, and the decisions made regarding it are nuanced. We are receptive to hearing any feedback from our users, especially to how they are affected by these topics and statements. If you have any concerns, please let members of the staff know your concerns or how these statements affect you or reflect your own experiences.
Thank you,
-bobthefunny
I'd be curious to know what the site owners' opinions on police violence is - whether they condone, disprove of, or perceive it at all. Rhetorical question: what's the value of a life given in service to a fundamentally racist institution? Not to be crass or cruel - because I do value all life (insofar as living is concerned), and do not condone violence for any reason - but if I may draw a historical comparison: a Nazi soldier jumping on a grenade to spare his squadmates might be noble in the abstract, but ultimately does not redeem the greater cause they're fighting for. Again, the purpose of a peace officer is supposed to be the service and protection of their community (it's in their name!), but recent events have shed some unfortunate light on the very grim reality facing people in certain communities. It would be charitable, I think, to characterize police conduct as merely punitive in nature; in many situations I would call it outright criminal. While the loss of a human life is tragic under any circumstance, if we continue to uphold peace officers for self-sacrifice in the line of duty, we are then also promoting and perpetuating the racist institution they serve.
For what it's worth, I categorically reject the notion that there is any such thing as a 'blue life' - and I think I can attest to that better than most. Only half a shade darker than my own natural olive hue, my father was by all accounts simply a white guy with an occasionally dangerous job. I say occasionally because, in all the years he worked, my family and I were never kept in suspense by the prospect that he might not return home some tragic night. The sort of morbid stories my own students ask for when I disclose my military service were likewise in short supply; there was simply nothing to be said about violent encounters, and nothing I've seen or read since has led me to believe that life-threatening violence is a common occurrence for other peace officers. Despite my example above, I also reject the notion that peace officers are anything remotely akin to soldiers. I say that not just because I'm opposed to their deployment and use of combat firearms, but because they have a job they can walk away from at any time, without repercussion. Once I signed my contract, raised my hand and swore on the constitution, I no longer had any such right or privilege. Whether by virtue of my conscience, cowardice, or any belief in my own tactical expertise, any refusal to obey direct orders would have resulted in swift imprisonment. End of story. And for all of that, while my reintegration back into civilian life has been mostly positive, it is not representative of the way veterans are generally treated by society. We're venerated to some degree, yes, but it's merely lip service; I get one free meal a year on Veteran's Day, the same exact discount on movie tickets that any person with a student ID gets, and sometimes a convenient parking spot at the local Lowe's. I take umbrage with the fact that my service is used as a patriotic dog whistle to deny other people their constitutional rights - I swore to uphold the constitution, and that includes the right to protest and redress of grievances. If you don't like something patently wrong with America, the democratic answer is to fix it, not be bullied into leaving the country.
Do you know what my greatest sacrifice was? Not life, limb, or eyesight - I came out relatively healthy, physically speaking. No: for six long years I was an object, a possession of the United States, the very definition of government issue. I slept where the army wanted me to sleep, for however long they wanted me to sleep for*; I ate what the army wanted me to eat, when they wanted me to eat it; I lived wherever I was told - in which city, in which barracks, in which country; I carried whatever the army told me to carry, no matter how ultimately useless; and, too often begrudgingly, I was afforded healthcare with the constant threat of repercussion for being human and weak. I almost washed out of basic training the first time for coming down with bronchitis. Heaven help you if you had to stand before your 1SG and explain to him why you needed to attend sick call in the morning (this was the same guy who denied me, or attempted to deny me, half of my mandated convalescent leave after major surgery). All of my parts were there, but I seldom felt like a person. Anyone who outranked me could, at any given time, be given cause to outright ruin my life if I'd done something to offend them, such is the power and authority granted by the military chain of command. And for all of that, I haven't seen a single #GreenLivesMatter sticker anywhere, despite the fact that more military personnel die from suicide every year than in combat. Why is that? If we go so far as to demote military service to being just 'a job,' and there are many different kinds of dangerous jobs, why do we feel the need to advocate for only one of those jobs? Why is the one dangerous job being advocated for, in diametric opposition to BLM, the only job accused of perpetuating violence against that exact same group? I do not buy the hollow excuse that a historically harmful force can be co-opted into something positive with mere token gestures, nor do I understand how any #___LivesMatter can be construed as anything but a response to #BLM. You're right, context matters; the expression of #BlueLivesMatter here, on this site, represents a counter to my own personal attempts at awareness. Perhaps you should take into account the history of this site when determining that context.
I'm lucky for having suffered so little in comparison to those who come back with debilitating mental or emotional disorders. I will not bother to expound on the very real harm that PTSD poses to those genuinely afflicted by it, except to point out one tragic fact: the video that I shared with you in private, bob, and that you watched - do you know what happened to that police officer? The one who had the phrase "You're f*cked" etched onto his patrol rifle? He was acquitted two years ago and retired on a pension of $2,500 a month for PTSD. Woe unto those who sympathize with such a cop and not with the victims.
You know what? I'm inclined to share that same video here. It's not work safe, it's not family friendly, but I will suffer another infraction - my very last, if need be - to draw awareness to such a grotesquely topical piece of evidence, one that even I hadn't seen until just last week. Suffice it to say, no amount of training can ever be held responsible for making someone into a monster - but it certainly can enable them. I'm a grown man, a combat veteran. I've survived rolled over humvees, mortar attacks, and jumping out of perfectly good aircraft, and this made me weep; I cannot bring myself to watch it again. Do so at your own risk.
My point, or one of my many points, is that there is simply no good reason to uphold and venerate peace officers for sacrifices that they do not have to make. The law, the courts, and the unions have largely seen to it that an officer cannot generally be held responsible for their actions, no matter how grotesquely inadequate, because of the danger inherent to absolute worst case scenarios. We push them, as a society, to be glorified heroes, to be that off-duty cop who swoops in and saves an entire airport at Christmastime, or runs some street thug out of the local bodega before buying a pack of Fruity Bubblicious, all the while unaware of how dangerous it is - for cop and bystander alike - to arm them with a reason to bypass all good sense. Let me draw you an analogy: I was stationed in North Carolina**, and while I was there I tested for and received a concealed carry permit - a document that allowed me to carry a firearm, concealed on my person, in the 30 different state that hold reciprocity with NC. Under NC law, you must give a would-be assailant every opportunity to retreat before engaging them with lethal force, or be liable unto the law yourself, such is the value of life which generally predicates the law. You also cannot goad someone into a fight with you, while you are armed, and then respond with lethal force - that's outright murder, with all of its associated punishments. Some years after I received that permit - and some many years ago from this current point in time - a black kid by the name of Trayvon Martin was shot and killed for no greater crime than walking through the wrong neighborhood. Not the first racially motivated crime to be committed, and certainly not the last. George Zimmerman, no doubt emboldened by the fact that he was carrying a firearm, harassed Trayvon Martin until he snapped... and wound up dead as a consequence of Zimmerman's poor decision-making faculties. If Trayvon Martin had genuinely posed a threat, and George Zimmerman hadn't been armed, do you think he still would have considered putting himself in harm's way just to accost some random passerby? I sincerely doubt it. Trayvon Martin was murdered, no matter what the Florida courts have to say about it. Now instead of just one George Zimmerman, imagine you have an entire force of like-minded individuals, and one of those forces in every city, in every state, in the entire United States: men and women armed and emboldened, pushed by society to rush into conflict at a moment's notice, even when retreat is especially warranted. Men and women who are supposed to be held accountable to the same moral precepts which governed my own possession of a firearm in public, and yet are endowed with privileges above and beyond the law. Watch every video published since this summer of nightmares began, and tell me how many times you see a victim of police violence actually posing a threat to someone else before the cop escalates the situation into a lethal one. Give me a count: how many times could the cops have just walked away without any loss of life? Seriously, do it.
---
*Before I left the service, we had a rash of Article 15s leveraged against some lower enlisted in my battalion. Apart from their demotion and reduced pay, they were subjected to 40 days of extra duty: after the regular duty day ended at ~1700, they went to work for battalion staff until 0200... and then had to be present at reveille again at 0630. Repeat again for 5 days out of the week. On weekends they got to sleep in until 0900, though!
**One of the first examples of organized policing in the United States actually occurred in North Carolina in the 1700s. They were charged with "prevent[ing] slave rebellions and enslaved people from escaping." (credit to Wikipedia)
Your perceived problem of police violence is minuscule at best, facing the vast violence and crimes.
Mistakes result in tragic events, that will always be the case and while they cannot be belittled, they have to be served by justice of the court in a proper manner, not a wild witch hunt and destruction of anything and anybody just to satisfy some savage need of vengeance.
Media push the mobs to violence, which is a much bigger threat to humanity than any police violence could ever be.
Police serve the people, they give the lawful protection and people feel save around them (yes even black people, the vast majority will not condemn the police, but welcome them, especially in areas that are crime ridden).
And guess what, especially the crime ridden areas (with people under drugs, mental and physical health crisis and all kinds of issues) will absolutely need a minimal form of law and order to not fully fall to anarchy and chaos.
What we see, when anarchist gangs and mobs riot the streets is the absolute HELL, its like a war zone and nobody should suffer to live under such circumstances.
And the worst part of it, its completely manufactured, people just lose their minds and abandon all basic principles of peace and harmony, they give in for hate and a very perverse form of justice in bloodshed and violence.
If anybody starts a spiral of violence it will never end and just get worse.
All fundamental conflicts get down to that. Somebody has to forgive, and if they cant, they and all they love will suffer for it (in this world and after).
Defunding the people that swore and oath to serve and protect is complete inversion of help, it sabotages the work of the police and lets them face insane violence without the proper tools to face them.
While the police does that job, politics, especially the local politics have to create the means for social help.
That is NOT the job of the police, and right now, especially in the big cities, police is simply send to anything, regardless of if they are trained to handle the problem ; and that will as we see again and again lead to problems as people with less training will not be equipped to handle very stressful situations, which they cannot foresee to happen.
Right now people will intentionally provoke the police, put them in dangerous situations intentionally, stress them further and constantly ; and then when they finally get what they wanted, they will film that last 5 minutes, upload it and make it the new story of the week.
This trend is pathetic, disgusting, absolutely destructive and leads to nothing positive.
So while you might argue for DefundThePolice, you should actually ask for even more money, to much better train the police, give them much better equipment and in parallel start the work with social workers.
But areas with very significant issues in drugs require a lot of expensive work to get the drugs out of the people, their lives, kids in families of drug addicts have a tremendously fight in front of them to get out of that hole.
Violent gangs especially in the big cities roam there forever, and they persist in prison and everywhere. If there is a culture of crime and gangs, thats not a culture anybody should ever appreciate, it leads only to misery and death.
Structural problems exist in many shades. Racism especially is a minuscule problem in that greater scheme, as its more of a symptom that gets really ugly if more dire issues come together.
Drugged addicted gangs will produce such a massive bad image of a group of people, and if that group has a vast majority of a skin color or ethnic background, Racism against that group will spring into peoples lives, not because they are naturally racist, but they are driven into it (and getting them out and abandon it is sadly often only done by an entire generation that starts with a clean slate again).
If people have no proper structure, there is nothing that holds them above water and once they sink in enough, people start to struggle for air, and do so violently, which just drags more people into the whirlpool of violence ; that has to stop as soon as possible, and sadly it is dragging on for way too long already and current events just make everything worse in that regard.
----
The police officers are not your enemy.
But police officers are also not super heroes, they cant do everything, and they absolutely need proper funding, not budget cuts that lead to less training, worse equipment and a media that slurs and blames them for everything that the local politics in these big cities so continuously failed to do.
Mob justice is the last a society should ever ask for, we had enough of that in the past, and humanity should have learned enough that this does not make anything better and the problems just persist and fester.
----
#BLM as it is now does absolute NOTHING positive at all for anybody.
People either follow it like a cult mindlessly or they cower in FEAR of the mob.
Its in stark contrast to any kind of harmony between the people.
People can have very different world views, as long as they threat each other with respect and have harmony in mind, problems can be solved in a non-violent way.
If conflict erupts and violence is needed, it has to be swift, proper and most importantly, justified by law and order, not anarchy, spite, hate and vengeance.
----
#BlueLivesMatter will always ensure that police officers are not the sacrificial goat for a out of control media that is horny for the next violent riot, just to get a headline.
Police officers are human beings, with all the flaws of any human being.
And they deserve, like anybody else, justice by law and order.
As long as #BLM is actively asking for pro violence against police officers, and act like its totally fine to create chaos and instigate violent mobs, any movement that stands in opposition of #BLM is more than welcome to balance the insanity.
People that believe in the actual positive messages of #BLM should absolutely distance themselves from that group and start to act in their local community to start a change ; Hollywood stars and other fancy people will not help any of these interests, they only seek attention and self-glorification, they have nobody else interest in mind then their own.
I'd be curious to know what the site owners' opinions on police violence is - whether they condone, disprove of, or perceive it at all. Rhetorical question: what's the value of a life given in service to a fundamentally racist institution? Not to be crass or cruel - because I do value all life (insofar as living is concerned), and do not condone violence for any reason - but if I may draw a historical comparison: a Nazi soldier jumping on a grenade to spare his squadmates might be noble in the abstract, but ultimately does not redeem the greater cause they're fighting for. Again, the purpose of a peace officer is supposed to be the service and protection of their community (it's in their name!), but recent events have shed some unfortunate light on the very grim reality facing people in certain communities. It would be charitable, I think, to characterize police conduct as merely punitive in nature; in many situations I would call it outright criminal. While the loss of a human life is tragic under any circumstance, if we continue to uphold peace officers for self-sacrifice in the line of duty, we are then also promoting and perpetuating the racist institution they serve.
I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would claim to be for excessive violence. Police are no exception. Excessive police violence is never to be condoned - however policing is itself a job that comes into contact with violence frequently, and sometimes needs to resort to violence. It is important to separate the activism against the excessive and unnecessary violence.
Likewise, while policing in general has had racist results, it's important to separate that the police institution is not a racist institution - there is no racist agenda that they are fighting for. Policing is intended to be the institution that upholds the laws and protects the people - That this is not happening equally is the problem. The execution, not the vision or agenda. Not only that, but not every police officer is racist. Not every police officer ends encounters with minorities with gun shots. To say that these officers have no value of life? To compare them to Nazis? That is beyond harsh.
Your example of Nazism is also interesting. Even at its height, only about 10% of Germans were actually Nazis. Many more than that were German soldiers. Not every soldier actively believed in the Nazi ideal - this was a movement that grew over time, meticulously, and stamped out any dissent or opposition. To say that each of these people lose all claims of humanity is extreme. Many debates are had over the culpability of individual people in the movement, or even in mobs in general.
As I said earlier, policing is a dangerous job. Police Officers should expect to encounter violence, danger, and hardship in the line of duty. However, we can still recognize that they are making that choice. That remains a noble choice, of itself. Not only that, but #BlueLivesMatters is a step beyond that. It isn't just about police officers being killed for doing their job - it's a movement about bringing attention to officers who were gunned down - targeted by assassins and terrorists, outside of the normal line of duty.
Now, #Blue lives activists have taken the movement beyond that scope, pitting it as #BLM vs #BlueLM - that is despicable. But several groups have taken #BLM chants to violence as well, or even in seeking confrontation and violence in counter #BlueLM protests. These are extremists. If we say, rightfully, that they should not be held against #BLM - then those coopting #BlueLM should not be held against that movement either. - That is the position we have arrived at, and why Context matters. If #BLM were used in a harassing manner, it would not be allowed here. Using #BlueLivesMatter in a harassing manner won't be allowed either. But as a supportive statement, we have decided that they are valid.
Despite my example above, I also reject the notion that peace officers are anything remotely akin to soldiers.
While some cities and areas are inherently more dangerous than others, I think most can agree here. The dangers of an active warzone far outweigh the dangers of policing even the harshest areas. Dangers do exist, and part of the problem right now is that Soldiers are actually showing more restraint in a more dangerous situation than a large number of police officers.
I take umbrage with the fact that my service is used as a patriotic dog whistle to deny other people their constitutional rights - I swore to uphold the constitution, and that includes the right to protest and redress of grievances. If you don't like something patently wrong with America, the democratic answer is to fix it, not be bullied into leaving the country.
This is well said.
And for all of that, I haven't seen a single #GreenLivesMatter sticker anywhere, despite the fact that more military personnel die from suicide every year than in combat. Why is that? If we go so far as to demote military service to being just 'a job,' and there are many different kinds of dangerous jobs, why do we feel the need to advocate for only one of those jobs? Why is the one dangerous job being advocated for, in diametric opposition to BLM, the only job accused of perpetuating violence against that exact same group?
These are good and important questions. Many human rights grievances need attention brought to them, many in different ways. Women's rights, LGBT rights, all have movements behind them advocating the changes we need. Sometimes they enter the spotlight, sometimes they get swept away a month later. Media attention and documentaries help bring these issues back into the light, but even those are fraught with controversy - especially when it is counter to current prevalent consensus. Veteran rights and issues have been brought up time and again, but the issues still persist. We can only try to keep bringing attention to the issues, and hope we find ways to improve them.
In terms of Police lives, it is only natural that as the Police come under scrutiny that they would wish to remind people of their side of the story, their sacrifices, and their problems. Since the spotlight is focused on them, they have gotten more attention of late.
Policing does need to change, and improve, towards #BLM violations. But while we are reexamining how we Police, why can we not fix other issues as well? Such as their mental health care, public image, or that they can be made targets? That there are other issues do not necessarily invalidate theirs. It's important to target the important changes first, but if we can fix more than one thing at the same time, I would be for it. My hope is that the Defund campaign will have an impact on how Police respond, and thereby lower the rate at which they are targeted.
You know what? I'm inclined to share that same video here. It's not work safe, it's not family friendly, but I will suffer another infraction - my very last, if need be - to draw awareness to such a grotesquely topical piece of evidence, one that even I hadn't seen until just last week. Suffice it to say, no amount of training can ever be held responsible for making someone into a monster - but it certainly can enable them. I'm a grown man, a combat veteran. I've survived rolled over humvees, mortar attacks, and jumping out of perfectly good aircraft, and this made me weep; I cannot bring myself to watch it again. Do so at your own risk.
This video is disturbing. I still cannot wrap my head around it. The individual here clearly has problems that need to be addressed.
Men and women who are supposed to be held accountable to the same moral precepts which governed my own possession of a firearm in public, and yet are endowed with privileges above and beyond the law.
Qualified Immunity is one of the things that needs to change. The simple truth is that the idea behind it, and how it is implemented do not match up.
Your perceived problem of police violence is minuscule at best, facing the vast violence and crimes.
The people who have been incorrectly at the receiving end of this would beg to differ - and they are standing up to bring attention to it through their protests, and highlighting repeated instances proving that this is not miniscule. That this is NOT individual situations, but a history of repeated abuse.
Mistakes result in tragic events, that will always be the case and while they cannot be belittled, they have to be served by justice of the court in a proper manner, not a wild witch hunt and destruction of anything and anybody just to satisfy some savage need of vengeance.
The issue that is being campaigned is that this is consistent and repeated, and that the perpetrators are NOT being served justice in a proper manner. The system is currently not working as intended.
Media push the mobs to violence, which is a much bigger threat to humanity than any police violence could ever be.
Current media dramatization and sensationalism is certainly a problem. Police violence is still a problem as well.
All fundamental conflicts get down to that. Somebody has to forgive, and if they cant, they and all they love will suffer for it (in this world and after).
Why should the victims be the ones expected to forgive? Why should they forgive, when no impactful change has occured to stop them from being the victims? When no change has occurred, despite repeated examples and attention brought to this same issue, not for 5 years, not 10 years, not even 20 years, but well over 40 years with no meaningful change?
Defunding the people that swore and oath to serve and protect is complete inversion of help, it sabotages the work of the police and lets them face insane violence without the proper tools to face them.
I think you have a misconception as to what #DefundThePolice entails.
The idea behind #Defund is that police are not the right service to call as first responders in many situations. Police Officers currently have more responsibilities than they should, and that is impacting their performance and their responses. It is placing an undue burden in the amount of different trainings they are expected to have.
Instead, #Defund suggests that other first response alternatives are more viable. Just as a Police Officer is not the primary response unit to a Fire, but rather we have firefighters for that, for a health check, or a mental health response, sending an armed police officer isn't necessary. A social worker or some form of medical personnel is more qualified to giving the care needed and addressing the needs of the situation.
If we move these duties into these new response units, then this removes a burden from the Police. A burden that they no longer need to commit training, personnel, gear, and monetary resources towards. This allocation needs to move out of the Police, where it does not belong, and into the initiatives where it will help.
#Defund is not about pretending that the same social health aspects can be done on a lower budget, but about allocating that budget into the services and initiatives that are best equipped to handle it.
Even Chicago's big push to disband the police force was taken entirely out of context. Many articles pushed forward the headlines of "What will Chicago do without a police department?!? It will be chaos!" They completely ignored that the context was to disband the police department, yes, that had been plagued with decades of documented corruption and incompetence, and instead allocate the funds into other social initiatives to replace those same areas of service, including looking into how to rebuild a department to handle routine policework, investigations, and crime prevention. It was all there already.
All the articles that claimed "Don't defund the police, rethink policing in Chicago and beyond" are missing the fact that it was exactly what the Defund movement was already all about! Rethinking how policing works. What Police are currently responsible for, and whether they should be.
That is NOT the job of the police, and right now, especially in the big cities, police is simply send to anything, regardless of if they are trained to handle the problem ; and that will as we see again and again lead to problems as people with less training will not be equipped to handle very stressful situations, which they cannot foresee to happen.
And this is exactly what #Defund is trying to address.
So while you might argue for DefundThePolice, you should actually ask for even more money, to much better train the police, give them much better equipment and in parallel start the work with social workers.
The need is to get the money and funding to the right places, and train the right people, instead of putting more stress onto an already overburdened police force.
Structural problems exist in many shades. Racism especially is a minuscule problem in that greater scheme, as its more of a symptom that gets really ugly if more dire issues come together.
The fact that the racism continues today and is not fixed shows that it's not a miniscule problem, and that it hasn't gone away on its own. That means we need to examine if proactive steps will prove better or more effective - because what we have been doing, is not working.
#BLM as it is now does absolute NOTHING positive at all for anybody.
BLM is bringing forth attention to an issue that has plagued our country for too long. Is it wrong for people to demand change when something is wrong?
Sure, sometimes people see a perceived wrong, and they stand up and demand change - the attention makes people examine the problem, and it's seen that the wrong is inconsequential or simply perceived, and that there is no problem... But that's not what happened here.
Multiple studies back up the claims. Multiple studies show that there is an issue. That's why so many people have gotten on board.
Are there group causes that go overboard? Yes. Are there group causes that go too far, based on inaccurate evidence? Yes. That's why it's important to look into who is supporting the cause, why it's being supported, and what the research is behind it.
In this case, when one side is being upheld by most research institutions, and the other is being upheld by self-avowed racists...
#BlueLivesMatter will always ensure that police officers are not the sacrificial goat for a out of control media that is horny for the next violent riot, just to get a headline.
This is important. To have a counterbalancing point to ensure that things do not go too far in scapegoating.
As long as #BLM is actively asking for pro violence against police officers
Gonna need a source.
People that believe in the actual positive messages of #BLM should absolutely distance themselves from that group and start to act in their local community to start a change ; Hollywood stars and other fancy people will not help any of these interests, they only seek attention and self-glorification, they have nobody else interest in mind then their own.
That's what people are doing. Campaigning their senators, governors, and local governments to change how we police, and examine the biases in our society and enact change upon it. That's literally what #BLM is about.
I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would claim to be for excessive violence. Police are no exception. Excessive police violence is never to be condoned - however policing is itself a job that comes into contact with violence frequently, and sometimes needs to resort to violence. It is important to separate the activism against the excessive and unnecessary violence.
It would be important to make that distinction if we assume that is a distinction among natural kinds: policing that involves excessive and unnecessary violence, and policing which does not. It is actually quite substantive a claim to state that the latter exists or is possible; it is also substantive to claim otherwise. Which is to say, neither is a neutral or default position. While it is certainly a commonly held view that policing is a necessary institution (and by virtue of that, any violence it may involve is not always unnecessary), alternative views have been proposed. The basis of the alternative view is the principle that an institution which creates a societal caste of law enforcers whose enforcement practice is founded on their caste license to firearm usage, is an inherently violent institution because it is nonvoluntary and entrenches hierarchical relations. What is proposed instead is a society in which authority is determined by voluntary relations that democratize in all spheres of life. Insofar as this alternative view provides a different model of society which is possible (it's at least logically possible, whereas practically, technologically, or politically possible are much harder judgments), police violence is never necessary and so police aren't necessary either.
I'm pointing this out because this is the sort of argument being made by people in the anti-fascist movement, and you seem to be unfamiliar with it. The advocacy of centrist, bourgeois liberals for reform of these institutions needs to be understood for what it is: counterrevolutionary. And this position is not holding an unbiased middle line, it works against the changes the anti-fascist movement is working towards by asserting the problems are not fundamental to the institutions. And because such moderate views tend to be more palatable to the mainstream audience, they've attained widespread ideological success, even though as you admit below, much hasn't changed on account of those policies over the course of not-so-recent history. Belief in institutional reform is not the same as denying that the problems exist at all. There are valid reasons for thinking that institutional reform is possible, just as there are valid reasons for thinking it is not (obviously I'm inclined toward the latter, full disclosure, and I would point out validity alone isn't equivalence of justification). My point is that this is hugely contentious issue; liberals and the left both favor solving the problem but they're really not on the same side when it comes to the method--and method is critical.
The effect of this conflict probably has contributed to the inefficacy of the half-measures which have been legislated in the past even as they were eroded and actually reversed by the triangulation strategies of the center in its competition with the right. But the division is something that is not easily mended because the point of the division is fundamental. And that's important because it means that, in practice, centrism opposes the left more than the right. That same bias is being reflected here in this forum.
Likewise, while policing in general has had racist results, it's important to separate that the police institution is not a racist institution - there is no racist agenda that they are fighting for. Policing is intended to be the institution that upholds the laws and protects the people - That this is not happening equally is the problem. The execution, not the vision or agenda. Not only that, but not every police officer is racist. Not every police officer ends encounters with minorities with gun shots. To say that these officers have no value of life? To compare them to Nazis? That is beyond harsh.
All that is required for an institution to be racist is that it participates in and/or perpetuates systemic racism. The institution of police does do this as you admit, so it is a racist institution. It is not necessary for that institution to have a conscious agenda of participating or perpetuating systemic racism. It is not necessary for the individuals who make up the institution in whole or in part to hold racial prejudices. These aren't the claims being made by people who say that the institution of the police is racist. The claim that you want to deny here is that the institution is necessarily racist, and the movement to defund the police is pretty skeptical about that denial to say the least.
Comparison of police officers to Nazis can be taken in two different ways: a police officer is the moral equivalent of a Nazi, or a police officer's actions have an underlying similarity in principle to the actions of a Nazi. The former is a comparison of degree, the latter is a comparison of category. In some cases, it can be both.
Your example of Nazism is also interesting. Even at its height, only about 10% of Germans were actually Nazis. Many more than that were German soldiers. Not every soldier actively believed in the Nazi ideal - this was a movement that grew over time, meticulously, and stamped out any dissent or opposition. To say that each of these people lose all claims of humanity is extreme. Many debates are had over the culpability of individual people in the movement, or even in mobs in general.
It's important to be cautious any time we dehumanize anyone. I re-read over FlossedBeaver's post and I didn't get the sense that his argument was the Nazi loses his claim to humanity, though if anyone would surely a Nazi is a candidate. He said that a Nazi whose act is characterized by what we would normally consider the virtue of courage should not be celebrated for this seeming courage because this virtue is not in harmony with other virtues (Plato's Laches, give me life! ). And this is quite germane to the consideration of whether #bluelivesmatter is a worthy cause to promote, in light of the question of whether the institution of police has any capacity of being realized in full virtue or is compatible with a society of liberal values.
As I said earlier, policing is a dangerous job. Police Officers should expect to encounter violence, danger, and hardship in the line of duty. However, we can still recognize that they are making that choice. That remains a noble choice, of itself. Not only that, but #BlueLivesMatters is a step beyond that. It isn't just about police officers being killed for doing their job - it's a movement about bringing attention to officers who were gunned down - targeted by assassins and terrorists, outside of the normal line of duty.
Policing is dangerous, although, many professions are more dangerous than that of the police who aren't being brought up because they are not an explicit foil to the political issue of black lives matter.
Again, can a choice be truly noble of itself as though isolated from the context that choice takes place in? The amount of analysis that question would take to even understand the problem it poses isn't suited to this format.
Now, #Blue lives activists have taken the movement beyond that scope, pitting it as #BLM vs #BlueLM - that is despicable. But several groups have taken #BLM chants to violence as well, or even in seeking confrontation and violence in counter #BlueLM protests. These are extremists. If we say, rightfully, that they should not be held against #BLM - then those coopting #BlueLM should not be held against that movement either. - That is the position we have arrived at, and why Context matters. If #BLM were used in a harassing manner, it would not be allowed here. Using #BlueLivesMatter in a harassing manner won't be allowed either. But as a supportive statement, we have decided that they are valid.
This appears to be a moral equivalence argument. Use of violence in any context is, by definition, extreme. Yet what most people (except absolute pacifists) agree on is that violence is sometimes necessary. You, for example, say police violence is sometimes necessary. Meaning, the context determines whether it's appropriate. If the context is an institution which systemically engages in violence under the auspices of state power, and a violent response is considered an undesirable but historically informed strategy of combating this institution, that position shares a principle with yours--neither is pacifist. But yours accepts the basic legitimacy of state violence and chooses moderate rather than extreme action as a response to this state violence. And there is a third position, the promotion of state violence, which you are characterizing as equivalent morally to the violent opposition. I don't think that you are morally equivalent to the state-violence-promoting group here but I do find it dubious that in this situation being moderate is the most rational and appropriate response, and I definitely object to the insinuation that the two groups you are comparing are at all similar.
The context of bluelivesmatter is that blacklivesmatter arose specifically to address the issue of police violence and the former was, in complete and utter cynicism, thrown out ad hoc to derail the discussion so that the focus was instead on... the perpetrators of the violence and their issues. I find this perverse. A specific individual's intent in invoking bluelivesmatter may simply be to offer support, but this usage is technically acontextual. Judging intent, especially over the internet, is basically impossible because intent is all about the inner aspect of the person using the expression and not about how its meaning is interpreted in context. I would welcome the discussion about this usage with someone who did have that sort of intent, because I welcome all discussion, but it's important to take into consideration the impact in which the proliferation of "bluelivesmatter" signatures would have on marginalized groups within the community. It would make the community less welcoming to them. Some people might be similarly impacted by "blacklivesmatter" and feel unwelcomed, but is this a segment of the community which is worthy of being specifically catered to? "Blacklivesmatter" does not have to be unwelcoming to anyone except those who do not want to accept this premise, and that's racists as a group. I think there's legitimate cause to say that the best thing for them is to sit with that discomfort, which is not something that applies to BIPOC in the reverse situation.
I do agree that harassment is always inappropriate. I think we have established that as a common ground.
These are good and important questions. Many human rights grievances need attention brought to them, many in different ways. Women's rights, LGBT rights, all have movements behind them advocating the changes we need. Sometimes they enter the spotlight, sometimes they get swept away a month later. Media attention and documentaries help bring these issues back into the light, but even those are fraught with controversy - especially when it is counter to current prevalent consensus. Veteran rights and issues have been brought up time and again, but the issues still persist. We can only try to keep bringing attention to the issues, and hope we find ways to improve them.
In terms of Police lives, it is only natural that as the Police come under scrutiny that they would wish to remind people of their side of the story, their sacrifices, and their problems. Since the spotlight is focused on them, they have gotten more attention of late.
Policing does need to change, and improve, towards #BLM violations. But while we are reexamining how we Police, why can we not fix other issues as well? Such as their mental health care, public image, or that they can be made targets? That there are other issues do not necessarily invalidate theirs. It's important to target the important changes first, but if we can fix more than one thing at the same time, I would be for it. My hope is that the Defund campaign will have an impact on how Police respond, and thereby lower the rate at which they are targeted.
I'm not sure a permissive attitude toward police PR efforts is exactly what this conflict calls for. I would draw a comparison to men's rights activism, which is reactionary to feminism. It assumes, first of all, that men's issues require distinct treatment not provided by feminism. This is somewhat understandable considering that the word is "feminism," the emphasis is on women. MRA is the "alllivesmatter" of gender issues, basically. But feminism actually does analyze the issues that men face under a patriarchal society, it just makes the simple point that its emphasis is based on the fact that the issues men face are overall not as impactful as patriarchal society is on women. So men don't really need a separate treatment on gender issues independent of feminist analysis; they're already covered. And, on top of that, for men to receive this separate treatment would mean that dialogue on gender issues is taking place in which women aren't prioritized, which is backwards because of the earlier point that women are impacted more heavily by the effects of systemic gender inequality. Finally, there's the way that this discourse has developed and takes place in practice, in order to derail feminist discourse. We can indeed solve both women's issues and men's issues at the same time. But the aversion that some men have to the solution because it associates them with femininity is a salient instantiation of the problem to begin with.
I am sure it is true that policing has negative effects on the police. However, they choose to become police. BLM has a solution to these negative effects which does not require the addition of separate treatment for police (the solution is defunding and abolition). There's also class analysis and mental health awareness available which would address different aspects of those issues in a way that's not offensive and would even support solidarity and social integration. In other words, there's a bevy of constructive approaches to the issues of the police that don't involve them centering attention on themselves as police.
***
You find yourself overcommitted to the board while playing your aggro deck, meanwhile your opponent's side of the board is empty. "Equality before the law," your opponent says, casting Wrath of God; "There is literally no oppression at all."
I'm pointing this out because this is the sort of argument being made by people in the anti-fascist movement, and you seem to be unfamiliar with it.
If you have material you would be kind of enough to send my way, I am intrigued.
All that is required for an institution to be racist is that it participates in and/or perpetuates systemic racism. The institution of police does do this as you admit, so it is a racist institution. It is not necessary for that institution to have a conscious agenda of participating or perpetuating systemic racism. It is not necessary for the individuals who make up the institution in whole or in part to hold racial prejudices. These aren't the claims being made by people who say that the institution of the police is racist. The claim that you want to deny here is that the institution is necessarily racist, and the movement to defund the police is pretty skeptical about that denial to say the least.
I think we are working on different definitions here.
It's important to be cautious any time we dehumanize anyone. I re-read over FlossedBeaver's post and I didn't get the sense that his argument was the Nazi loses his claim to humanity, though if anyone would surely a Nazi is a candidate. He said that a Nazi whose act is characterized by what we would normally consider the virtue of courage should not be celebrated for this seeming courage because this virtue is not in harmony with other virtues (Plato's Laches, give me life! ).
Perhaps I walked away with a different understanding of the example.
This appears to be a moral equivalence argument. Use of violence in any context is, by definition, extreme. Yet what most people (except absolute pacifists) agree on is that violence is sometimes necessary. You, for example, say police violence is sometimes necessary. Meaning, the context determines whether it's appropriate. If the context is an institution which systemically engages in violence under the auspices of state power, and a violent response is considered an undesirable but historically informed strategy of combating this institution, that position shares a principle with yours--neither is pacifist. But yours accepts the basic legitimacy of state violence and chooses moderate rather than extreme action as a response to this state violence. And there is a third position, the promotion of state violence, which you are characterizing as equivalent morally to the violent opposition. I don't think that you are morally equivalent to the state-violence-promoting group here but I do find it dubious that in this situation being moderate is the most rational and appropriate response, and I definitely object to the insinuation that the two groups you are comparing are at all similar.
You've lost me here, and are making things more convoluted than necessary.
What I am saying is that each group needs to be judged on their own position and merits, and not on the actions of another group that uses their slogan. If we uphold this ideal for #BlackLivesMatters, by saying that the violence and riots are a separate entity from the entity of the movement, and do not reflect the goals and general acceptance of the #BLM movement (which has been largely, but not entirely, peaceful protests) then we should uphold the same standards for others, and not villainize them based on the actions of other groups.
I have never stated that #BLM or any of the peaceful protests, or even civil disobedience, or even straight up riots, were unnecessary. The movement has stepped up its attempts to gain attention for a decade now, and if simple acts of attention aren't enough, clearly larger acts are needed until the attention is given is deserved. Simply because something is necessary however does not mean that it is exempt from repercussion either.
There are also various contexts of violence that seem to be conflated here. (1) Excessive violence and use of force by the Police that has led to the wrongful deaths of individuals with no repercussions; (2) Regular violence and use of Police force in proper procedure when other deescalation methods have failed - No matter what your beliefs or ideals, there will always be some need to apprehend a non-compliant subject; (3) the violence of the protests; (4) the violence of the riots; (5) the violence by government authorities against the protesters (peaceful, non-peaceful, and riots); and (6) the violence of confrontations between protesters and counter protesters. At no point did I ever claim that these different situations and contexts of violence are equivalent in scope, context, or anything else.
=====
The context of bluelivesmatter is that blacklivesmatter arose specifically to address the issue of police violence and the former was, in complete and utter cynicism, thrown out ad hoc to derail the discussion so that the focus was instead on... the perpetrators of the violence and their issues. I find this perverse. A specific individual's intent in invoking bluelivesmatter may simply be to offer support, but this usage is technically acontextual.
The general current accepted context does not seem to support this. If you have additional context to provide, I would be happy to pass it up and add it to the growing research that I have put together on this.
It's important to take into consideration the impact in which the proliferation of "bluelivesmatter" signatures would have on marginalized groups within the community. It would make the community less welcoming to them. Some people might be similarly impacted by "blacklivesmatter" and feel unwelcomed, but is this a segment of the community which is worthy of being specifically catered to?
That first is why initially we did not accept #BlueLives. However, after doing some research, what we found is that the blue lives movement is for solidarity of assassinated officers, and was not explicitly started as a counter-movement to BLM. This is reflected in common usage, as companies have explicitly allowed #BlueLives, and/or explicitly rolled back previous disapproval of it. This is in stark contrast to ALM, which is explicitly a counter-movement, and is likewise seen in common usage where companies have been explicitly disapproving of it, with such disapprovals only consistently rising. Likewise with #WLM, which barely even deserves a mention.
I'm not sure a permissive attitude toward police PR efforts is exactly what this conflict calls for. I would draw a comparison to men's rights activism, which is reactionary to feminism. It assumes, first of all, that men's issues require distinct treatment not provided by feminism. This is somewhat understandable considering that the word is "feminism," the emphasis is on women. MRA is the "alllivesmatter" of gender issues, basically. But feminism actually does analyze the issues that men face under a patriarchal society, it just makes the simple point that its emphasis is based on the fact that the issues men face are overall not as impactful as patriarchal society is on women. So men don't really need a separate treatment on gender issues independent of feminist analysis; they're already covered. And, on top of that, for men to receive this separate treatment would mean that dialogue on gender issues is taking place in which women aren't prioritized, which is backwards because of the earlier point that women are impacted more heavily by the effects of systemic gender inequality. Finally, there's the way that this discourse has developed and takes place in practice, in order to derail feminist discourse. We can indeed solve both women's issues and men's issues at the same time. But the aversion that some men have to the solution because it associates them with femininity is a salient instantiation of the problem to begin with.
That is a TED talk by a previously prominent Women's Rights Activist who created two feminist documentaries, and then went to research the MRA for a third documentary, examined her own biases, found that they actually had compelling points not covered by feminism, made a documentary about it, and then was ostracized for supporting that unpopular view.
In short, according to her, after doing the research for her documentary she discovered that No, the Mens Rights Activists are NOT the "alllivesmatters" of gender issues. They did have a separate point, and were not necessarily in contention with the feminist movements, and that men are not "already covered."
A likewise interesting read, which showcases the dangers of being caught up in a popular opinion movement without doing your own proper research. Some quick googling shows that the general premise of this research holds merit, and that the Judge was following pre-set recommendations and standards, and that the general legal institution sided with him in the recall.
---
Likewise, it seems that #BlueLivesMatters has a separate point to make, which is not necessarily related to #BLM. I have not personally looked into whether or that point is valid, or to what degree, but it seems the general public is at least willing to currently give it due consideration.
I'll try to give a more substantive response tomorrow, but I feel like H3RAC71TU5 did a good job of shoring up what I would have addressed anyways.
In the interim, I just wanted to ask: what are your sources regarding Blue Lives Matter? A cursory glance at Wikipedia - while not the most academic of repositories, certainly the most immediately available - yields the following in just the first paragraph.
"Blue Lives Matter is a human rights countermovement in the United States advocating that those who are prosecuted and convicted of killing law enforcement officers should be sentenced under hate crime statutes.[1] It was started in response to Black Lives Matter after the homicides of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in Brooklyn, New York on December 20, 2014.[2]"
Emphasis mine. If Black Lives Matter started in 2013, how can Blue Lives Matter be a separate precursor? I'll see if I can't dig for other sources to verify, but I have no reason to doubt this information on the face of it.
If you have material you would be kind of enough to send my way, I am intrigued.
I'm deriving this argument from a reading of Bakunin and Marx, there's quite a lot of other literature I'm not well versed in. I'll try to see if I can find any articles applying this analysis to the current issue
All that is required for an institution to be racist is that it participates in and/or perpetuates systemic racism. The institution of police does do this as you admit, so it is a racist institution. It is not necessary for that institution to have a conscious agenda of participating or perpetuating systemic racism. It is not necessary for the individuals who make up the institution in whole or in part to hold racial prejudices. These aren't the claims being made by people who say that the institution of the police is racist. The claim that you want to deny here is that the institution is necessarily racist, and the movement to defund the police is pretty skeptical about that denial to say the least.
I think we are working on different definitions here.
Alright, I think that's probably true. But the definition I'm using seems to be the same definition that FlossedBeaver is using.
This appears to be a moral equivalence argument. Use of violence in any context is, by definition, extreme. Yet what most people (except absolute pacifists) agree on is that violence is sometimes necessary. You, for example, say police violence is sometimes necessary. Meaning, the context determines whether it's appropriate. If the context is an institution which systemically engages in violence under the auspices of state power, and a violent response is considered an undesirable but historically informed strategy of combating this institution, that position shares a principle with yours--neither is pacifist. But yours accepts the basic legitimacy of state violence and chooses moderate rather than extreme action as a response to this state violence. And there is a third position, the promotion of state violence, which you are characterizing as equivalent morally to the violent opposition. I don't think that you are morally equivalent to the state-violence-promoting group here but I do find it dubious that in this situation being moderate is the most rational and appropriate response, and I definitely object to the insinuation that the two groups you are comparing are at all similar.
You've lost me here, and are making things more convoluted than necessary.
Well, I do my best to edit my thoughts so that they're as clear as possible but it can be very difficult when I'm trying to discuss something that's counterintuitive.
Here's a different presentation:
1. You've condemned violent actions for the sake of BLM (hereafter termed "antifascist violence")
2. The condemnation in (1) was placed side by side with the condemnation of police violence (the promotion thereof hereafter termed "fascist violence") but
3. Earlier you stated police violence is sometimes necessary
4. Therefore, you're not a pacifist.
5. The non-pacifist distinction between anti-fascist violence, fascist violence, and your position is when violence is considered necessary
6. The conditions of fascist violence are institutionally in place and produce the most violence of the three standards in question
7. Anti-fascist violence considers itself to be necessary to oppose fascist violence yet is not violent in the absence of fascism
7a. Anti-fascist violence is only violent in practice against fascism, not violent in principle and in practice as with liberalism and fascism
8. You consider anti-fascist violence unnecessary, in direct comparison to the unnecessary nature of fascist violence
9. The toleration of some state violence naturally and predictably leads to tolerating increasing violence. It attempts to negate this violence from the equation by calling it necessary but neglects that its always violent in principle.
10. If you tolerate some degree of state violence per (3) and oppose anti-fascist violence per (8), then you cannot in principle violently oppose fascism
11. Not violently opposing fascism results in more fascist violence
12. Your position creates more net violence despite appearing to favor peace, which is morally untenable
What I am saying is that each group needs to be judged on their own position and merits, and not on the actions of another group that uses their slogan. If we uphold this ideal for #BlackLivesMatters, by saying that the violence and riots are a separate entity from the entity of the movement, and do not reflect the goals and general acceptance of the #BLM movement (which has been largely, but not entirely, peaceful protests) then we should uphold the same standards for others, and not villainize them based on the actions of other groups.
I understand that this was the point you were making, but the examples you choose for your comparison were ill-considered since you did not qualify what you were saying with a statement about how they're not equivalent.
I have never stated that #BLM or any of the peaceful protests, or even civil disobedience, or even straight up riots, were unnecessary. The movement has stepped up its attempts to gain attention for a decade now, and if simple acts of attention aren't enough, clearly larger acts are needed until the attention is given is deserved. Simply because something is necessary however does not mean that it is exempt from repercussion either.
Ok, so you are denying my premise 8 from above.
That does change my interpretation a little bit. But I'm not quite sure what you mean here by repercussion. One possible repercussion of this activism is that society changes in some way along the lines that the activism took as a goal. If this doesn't happen, then that activism was not effective, and this is also a repercussion. I think you mean something like legal, criminal justice type repercussions, which is of course an aspect of the struggle. Or in the context of this forum, the enforcement of rules (you mentioned harassment specifically).
We must all accept the consequences of our actions. But the necessity of our actions ought to be a factor where there's a choice about those consequences. If this isn't weighed properly it implies a denial of the necessity, which would bring premise 8 back into the picture.
There are also various contexts of violence that seem to be conflated here.
Not conflated, considered violence in principle.
(1) Excessive violence and use of force by the Police that has led to the wrongful deaths of individuals with no repercussions; (2) Regular violence and use of Police force in proper procedure when other deescalation methods have failed - No matter what your beliefs or ideals, there will always be some need to apprehend a non-compliant subject;
You seem to misunderstand what I'm saying here. Of all the possible institutional models in which the need to apprehend a non-compliant subject is to be addressed, how does the institution of the police fare? The institution of the police can't be separated out from the capitalist state as a whole... it's integral. And there's a number of factors here because of that: 1. poverty is positively correlated with criminality, capitalism suppresses wages and perpetuates cycles of poverty as the necessary condition of increasing profits 2. in order to increase profits capitalist states are pressured toward privatization 3. privatized prison-industrial complexes profit from increased incarceration 4. police are thereby encouraged to incarcerate as many people as possible 5. poor people are easier to incarcerate (black people are disproportionately poor) 6. reforms leave intact the existence of the capitalist class who organize to undermine these reforms ... etc.
So, for one, I'm suggesting there's an alternate model where the number of situations in which a non-compliant subject needs to be apprehended is diminished. And secondly, when the method of apprehension involves the community in a directly democratic process instead of designated gun-bearers of an official state, that method is compatible with rehabilitative and restorative justice.
(3) the violence of the protests; (4) the violence of the riots; (5) the violence by government authorities against the protesters (peaceful, non-peaceful, and riots); and (6) the violence of confrontations between protesters and counter protesters. At no point did I ever claim that these different situations and contexts of violence are equivalent in scope, context, or anything else.
Yet the comparison implies it. You deem both to be unacceptable, you didn't specify anything beyond this.
=====
The general current accepted context does not seem to support this. If you have additional context to provide, I would be happy to pass it up and add it to the growing research that I have put together on this.
Seems to me the person advocating for bluelivesmatter in this thread is an example of the case I was talking about.
That first is why initially we did not accept #BlueLives. However, after doing some research, what we found is that the blue lives movement is for solidarity of assassinated officers, and was not explicitly started as a counter-movement to BLM. This is reflected in common usage, as companies have explicitly allowed #BlueLives, and/or explicitly rolled back previous disapproval of it. This is in stark contrast to ALM, which is explicitly a counter-movement, and is likewise seen in common usage where companies have been explicitly disapproving of it, with such disapprovals only consistently rising. Likewise with #WLM, which barely even deserves a mention.
Isn't it implicitly counter to it, though? After all, it uses the same framing. I find this interpretation a little obtuse.
That is a TED talk by a previously prominent Women's Rights Activist who created two feminist documentaries, and then went to research the MRA for a third documentary, examined her own biases, found that they actually had compelling points not covered by feminism, made a documentary about it, and then was ostracized for supporting that unpopular view.
In short, according to her, after doing the research for her documentary she discovered that No, the Mens Rights Activists are NOT the "alllivesmatters" of gender issues. They did have a separate point, and were not necessarily in contention with the feminist movements, and that men are not "already covered."
Anything to be published. Lots of people profess to be "feminist" but it's actually a pretty intellectually difficult subject and not everyone who takes on this title is very representative or consistent with feminism. J.K. Rowling comes to mind, being a TERF. This is a misnomer, by the way; there's nothing radical or feminist about TERFs... they are reactionary and non-feminist. Or, for another example, the typical populist version of feminism which argued that it was automatically sexist to oppose Hilary Clinton's candidacy for presidency in 2016 despite the fact that her policy platform and record wasn't particularly favorable to women's liberation. I find this video to be impossibly shallow to be considered seriously as a counterexample, almost as if she was trying to be a "stereotypical" feminist in her initial spin of her interviews. Just one example.... speaking personally as a man who was a victim of domestic violence, I would point out the discrepancy in institutional support for victims of domestic violence is something that absolutely can be addressed in feminist theory, the idea that some women who call themselves feminists would take a dismissive attitude toward the issue might just be an indicator of a need to reflect more deeply on the commitments their ideology entails.
There are limits to feminist theory as a form of analysis. But I don't see this video as demonstrating its limits, as much as of the limits of the speaker's own thinking. Of course, her exposure to a different point of view was critical for being able to acknowledge her biases and maybe that wasn't possible in her normal feminist circle. Maybe, in practice, feminist discourse has the possibility of inculcating these biases if it forms overly insular communities. But that doesn't prove that MRA is itself necessary, it just had the accidental effect in her case of getting her out of her echo chamber. But that's also kind of why I've hammered on about how we need freer discourse everywhere it occurs. In other words, I don't want the MRAs to shut up, but I do want to explain to them why listening a little can be beneficial.
BLM is bringing forth attention to an issue that has plagued our country for too long. Is it wrong for people to demand change when something is wrong?
Change you never be DEMANDED , especially not by violence, oppression, insults and property destruction.
Change has to be made by a concentrated effort to make it BETTER, not run the entire society in the ground in the process to aim for some fantasy, that will only shift the supposed problem to somebody else.
----
There is to say, people are way more inclined to act like they are oppressed, as it provides them benefits.
As long as crying victim (no matter if its real or not) results in attention and is rewarded, thats exactly what you get.
And if somebody cries victim while smashing windows in, looting stores and putting fire to buildings, i cannot take any of it serious, its completely impossible to have any meaningful "message" if its all about destruction and making absolutely everything worse for anybody.
----
The fact that the racism continues today and is not fixed shows that it's not a miniscule problem, and that it hasn't gone away on its own. That means we need to examine if proactive steps will prove better or more effective - because what we have been doing, is not working.
Actual problematic racism is already gone.
Law even goes as far as to give black people affirmative action, which is a form of racism in itself.
So it can very well be said that the pendelumn already swings in the other direction, making the supposed former racists into the actual people that face racism themselves.
The very idea that black "cant be racist" is mind boggling naive.
Theres countless hate crimes against white people (and anybody claimed to be white) of absolutely disgusting people that in their delusion of racism believe they are entitled and justified to commit these violent acts.
These sick people are laughing and are absolutely sure they are justified to do that.
Its what BLM pushes in itself, it produces this sentiment in people, that they can do all these evil things, because they are "justified" to do so (which they are absolutely not).
BLM actively aims to make violence "ok" , like its not a problem at all, while simultaneously claiming the other kind of violence is bad. Both violence is bad, so stop it instead of instigating more of it!
Completly wrong, either get your message PEACEFULLY across, or you just become a part of the problem on your own.
And at this stage, BLM is dividing so much, that you end up with people on both sides that justify violence, and we absolutely never ever want to have that.
People that are incapable to talk and argue about their issues will just freak out about anything, especially if it "works" for them.
(Even little kids have to learn that crying does not help them, they will just learn to cry all the time and do nothing on their own)
Who wants to live in a area where every black person looks at you like you are the devil, and they hate you, for no reason at all, because they are told to.
Thats what happens in every ideology that turns evil.
People are indoctrinated with hate and they justify absolute evil like they are fighting for the "good" itself.
Violence can never be accepted as a means to push any message.
Violence is the absolute proof that one side lost the argument and wants to push their superiority over another person.
----
If people are told from pre-school onwards they are victims and oppressed, they will believe it.
If people are told police will kill them, they will believe it.
If all they see in the news is the absolute worst escalated conflicts of the police, they will believe that is "normal".
If a person is in irrational fear when they face police, they will panic and act out aggressive and violently.
Even more so if under drugs.
These people are already dangerous, and the indoctrination of irrational fear makes it many stages worse.
People dont even want proper justice by law and order.
They replace that with mob justice and what somebody said is like the absolute truth, unquestioned, what they say it is.
There is no rational in that, other than the indoctrinated fear that turns into an even more dangerous manifested claim for blood vengeance, like they are "totally" justified to hunt people down on their own, without any fair trial in court.
People are not guilty till a court decides they are guilty.
And if people cannot accept that, everyone is guilty by default, and thats a terrifying evil premise as it undermines any basic principle of a fair trial and a proper fair justice system.
----
BLM for some reason believes in righting the supposed wrongs with more wrong doing from somebody else, completely disconnected from the actual point.
----
To identify if an ideology is either good or evil in nature can be easily broken down to:
- Is the ideology advocating for violence against anybody ?
Yes (war) - evil
No (peace) - good
- Is the ideology putting anybody or any group above another ?
Yes (supremacy) - evil
No (equality) - good
- Is the ideology providing all its people the same fundamental freedoms ?
Yes (liberal respect) - good
No (authoritarian fascism) - evil
----
In a mob people stop thinking on their own.
They act like savage animals and drive each other in a frenzy that is inherently destructive and terrible for everyone.
As a town, a state or a nation (or even the entire world) , people have to work together and contribute to make the entirety better for everyone.
Waging war against your own people is only hurting yourself and everyone around you.
Separating people by skin color is inherently racist.
To claim a group of skin color requires inherently different treatment is racist.
- Violence is always in itself physical oppression.
- Violence should never be glorified.
- Violence will always produce fear, hate and mistrust.
Likewise, while policing in general has had racist results, it's important to separate that the police institution is not a racist institution - there is no racist agenda that they are fighting for. Policing is intended to be the institution that upholds the laws and protects the people - That this is not happening equally is the problem.
This is patently false on its face. While you are correct that there may not be widespread personal racism, it is in fact institutionally racist - and there are salient claims that it has been since its inception. This, it seems, hinges on our individual definitions of what racism is or is not; I'll address this below.
H3RAC71TU5 was already kind enough to point out that racism need not be intentional, or even perceived, for it to exist and do harm. Perhaps the greatest difficulty of this entire topic is that personal bias is so difficult to perceive, and when pointed out by others oftentimes elicits a defensive, knee-jerk response (fight or flight). Many people advocating for #AllLivesMatter do not perceive themselves as being racist, but I think we can both agree that it is. It has been a constant uphill battle to convince my own mother, now on the precipice of 70, that saying "all lives matter" is inherently racist, no matter how many black friends you have or disinclined you are to use the n-word. I hope the analogy is clear.
Quote from bobthefunny »
The execution, not the vision or agenda. Not only that, but not every police officer is racist. Not every police officer ends encounters with minorities with gun shots. To say that these officers have no value of life? To compare them to Nazis? That is beyond harsh.
There is a substantive argument to be made that upholding traditionally white cultural norms and social mores (both de facto and de jure) is the purview of our modern police force, and that we can trace the origins of such a "vision or agenda" well before the Reconstruction period. The term "racist" is generally unpalatable for those accused of being such, but the term "white supremacist" is even less so, given that it has negative connotations extending beyond mere personal bias. Outside of polite discourse I would refrain from using the latter, but it seems apt here, given the generally educational bent of this conversation. The police force is, institutionally speaking, a white supremacist organization; in practice as well as principle, it exists to promote the well-being of a white majority at the expense of others in a traditionally zero-sum game. If we think about this outside the scope of just violence for a moment, the facts speak for themselves: black communities are over-policed relative to white communities, and black people are targeted and incarcerated in disproportionately higher numbers than are white people. Again, that this is fact should be beyond dispute. The ultimate question that arises, then, is why? What are the underlying factors in our society that lead to this outcome? Liberals propose that there is a complex system of overlapping institutions, events, and social systems which have subordinated black people in society, going all the way back before the founding of the United States, and that the police force - as an extension of the state - is one such institution. Conservatives have not offered any better explanation than a correlational culture of criminality, one that ignores all of the historical circumstances that lead to such crime in the first place. While they generally avoid accusations by way of skin color (so as to adhere to their own limited definition of racism), blaming black culture is ultimately no less racist. I'm loath to compare human beings to animals, but if you'll allow me one more analogy: if you set fire to a cage of rats, and the rats kill each other in a frenzy to get away from the fire, do you blame the person who set that fire, or do you say "Look! It's in their nature for rats to be violent to each other!"?
I would hope that, given the context of everything I've brought to the table up to this point, nobody would walk away with the impression that I don't value life, even the life of a peace officer.
Quote from bobthefunny »
Your example of Nazism is also interesting. Even at its height, only about 10% of Germans were actually Nazis. Many more than that were German soldiers. Not every soldier actively believed in the Nazi ideal - this was a movement that grew over time, meticulously, and stamped out any dissent or opposition. To say that each of these people lose all claims of humanity is extreme.
Let's not be disingenuous about my rhetoric. As a credentialed historian, and someone who dabbles in historical war games, of course I'm well aware that the German Wehrmacht was not an inherently political organization, just as you are no doubt aware that the Waffen-SS was. I prefer not to wax pedantic over facts that are not ultimately in service to my greater point, but you've forced my hand here. If it helps, though, consider this more specific example instead: a tower guard at a German concentration camp is not worthy of being venerated for dying in service to his country, regardless of the assumed principles of that country. However much sympathy you would afford such a person is ultimately a personal choice, but that is not the same as saying he "loses all claims of humanity."
Quote from bobthefunny »
As I said earlier, policing is a dangerous job. Police Officers should expect to encounter violence, danger, and hardship in the line of duty. However, we can still recognize that they are making that choice. That remains a noble choice, of itself. Not only that, but #BlueLivesMatters is a step beyond that. It isn't just about police officers being killed for doing their job - it's a movement about bringing attention to officers who were gunned down - targeted by assassins and terrorists, outside of the normal line of duty.
According to my research, about ~80 peace officers were killed in the line of duty last year, and only about half of those were a result of deliberate criminal acts. Compare that to the number of black people who suffered injustice (not just death) disproportionately in the same span of time and I think you'll see a huge comparative gap between the two social movements. Not only that, I think it bears mentioning that the two officers whose deaths resulted in the promulgation of #BlueLivesMatter were deliberately targeted as a consequence of what happened to Eric Garner and Michael Brown (and if you haven't already watched 8:46, I suggest you do so now). Further, I take issue with the term "assassinated" in this context, as it's deliberately loaded to generate undue sympathy for officers who are killed in the line of duty but not necessarily targeted for their profession; I suspect that number is somewhat lower, if not considerably. Can we use a less inflammatory word?
Lastly, from everything I've seen and read - and that includes the BlueLives core organization - the express intent of #BlueLivesMatter is not to generate awareness or sympathy but to promote legislation that casts violent acts which result in the death of peace officers as hate crimes. The so-called awareness is just a means to that end, and an especially emotive one at that, given how few officers would actually be subject to such a rule. This is both an implied moral and legislative false equivalence, because, like racism itself, it perpetuates a disparity in power between those in a position of authority and those who are subordinated to them. Suffice it to say, the police do not need more legal protection than they currently already enjoy. My takeaway, given these facts, is thus: #BlueLivesMatter is most definitely a countermovement, a response to the #BLM movement on a broader, social level, and also a response to my specific efforts at raising awareness for #BLM here at MTGS. I feel that those efforts are somewhat diminished by your allowance of #BlueLivesMatter by other posters, which may or may not be a calculated consequence of their intent, and that it will silently drive away viewership by others who genuinely need a safe space.
If you actually visit bluelivesmatter.blue, by the way, you'll be treated to a never-ending stream of pro-police propaganda, the intent of which is clearly aimed at undermining support for popular protests (peaceful or otherwise).
===
Contemporary definitions of racism deserve their own separate space, so I'll follow up in another post, unless somebody beats me to it.
In the interim, I just wanted to ask: what are your sources regarding Blue Lives Matter? A cursory glance at Wikipedia - while not the most academic of repositories, certainly the most immediately available - yields the following in just the first paragraph.
"Blue Lives Matter is a human rights countermovement in the United States advocating that those who are prosecuted and convicted of killing law enforcement officers should be sentenced under hate crime statutes.[1] It was started in response to Black Lives Matter after the homicides of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in Brooklyn, New York on December 20, 2014.[2]"
Emphasis mine. If Black Lives Matter started in 2013, how can Blue Lives Matter be a separate precursor? I'll see if I can't dig for other sources to verify, but I have no reason to doubt this information on the face of it.
BLM and Blue are intrinsically linked, as the two police officers killed were assassinated in reaction to assaults against BLM. This makes disentangling the two very difficult.
Wikipedia was a starting point for me as well, but the sources I listed in my earlier description of #BlueLives were brought in during further depth of research.
I would like to emphasize the second part of your quote from wikipedia as well: "It was started in response to Black Lives Matter after the homicides of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in Brooklyn, New York on December 20, 2014."
Now, Jacob is the president of Thin Blue Line USA, one of the largest online retailers devoted exclusively to sales of pro-police flags, T-shirts, neckwear and jewelry. “The flag has no association with racism, hatred, bigotry,” he said. “It’s a flag to show support for law enforcement—no politics involved.” The company officially disavowed its use in Charlottesville.
Jacob said the flag was not a direct reaction to the first Black Lives Matter protests—an idea suggested by a previous origin story in Harper’s—but he allows he may have first seen the thin blue line image after those protests spurred the circulation of pro-police imagery online. “That’s maybe why it came to my eyes,” he said.
As Jacob built the company, a “Blue Lives Matter” movement was growing in the wake of news stories of multiple officers shot to death in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Brooklyn, New York; and Dallas. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, as a presidential candidate, called police “the force between civilization and total chaos.” Some states began passing laws to categorize physical attacks on law enforcement officers as hate crimes.
That same winter, following the fatal ambush shooting of NYPD Officers Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Liu, a group of former and current police officers created a Facebook group, and later a news site, dubbed Blue Lives Matter.
The founders said they wanted to speak out against the “vilification of law enforcement” they observed from the nascent Black Lives Matter movement. They claimed they were “motivated by the heroic actions of Darren Wilson,” the Ferguson police officer who killed Brown. The movement soon adopted the Thin Blue Line as their flag.
Blue Lives Matter was founded based on the need of law enforcement. On August 9 2014, Ferguson PD Officer Darren Wilson was doing his job as he stopped Michael Brown, who had just committed a robbery of a local convenience store. Brown attacked Officer Wilson in an aggravated assault. Officer Wilson was forced to defend his life by shooting Brown. In the months that followed, agitators spread outright lies and distortions of the truth about Officer Wilson and all police officers. The media catered to movements such as Black Lives Matter, whose goal was the vilification of law enforcement. Criminals who rioted and victimized innocent citizens were further given legitimacy by the media as “protesters.” America watched as criminals destroyed property, and assaulted and murdered innocent people, and they labeled these criminals as victims. Personal responsibility for one’s actions went away, replaced by accusations of racism and an unjust government. It seemed that almost every media organization was spreading the absurd message that people were being shot by law enforcement simply because of the color of their skin. Our political leaders pandered to these criminals and helped spread this false narrative, with no thought of the consequences.
On December 20, 2014, NYPD Officer Rafael Ramos and Officer Wenjian Liu were ambushed and murdered by a fanatic who believed the lies of Black Lives Matter, the media, and politicians. While reporting on the murder of these heroes, the media continued to spread the false narrative of Black Lives Matter. Even the big law enforcement media companies, who purport to be all for the police, helped spread misinformation through re-posting articles written with an anti-police bias. This highlighted that these companies weren’t run by law enforcement, and they only cared about saving time and money “reporting” the news.
The officers who founded this organization were motivated by the heroic actions of Officer Darren Wilson, and many others, and decided to create this organization in the hopes that it could prevent more officers from being hurt.
Blue Lives Matter formed and gathered supporters of law enforcement on Facebook to distribute information which accurately reflected the realities of law enforcement. Feeling the limitations of being contained to Facebook, the Blue Lives Matter news website was launched to provide accurate coverage of law enforcement, from a law enforcement perspective.
In 2016, after an unprecedented number of ambush attacks on law enforcement officers, the founders decided that we could be doing more to help the officers who are getting attacked in the streets. The Blue Lives Membership was created so that citizens who aren’t afraid to support law enforcement could become actively involved in providing law enforcement officers with life-saving equipment and training, and providing financial support for the families of heroes killed in the line of duty.
Blue Lives Matter will continue to support law enforcement in any way when there is a need that we can fill.
Change you never be DEMANDED , especially not by violence, oppression, insults and property destruction.
Change has to be made by a concentrated effort to make it BETTER, not run the entire society in the ground in the process to aim for some fantasy, that will only shift the supposed problem to somebody else.
You mean, like change against an oppressive Monarchy which treated some of its ctizens as inferior and denying them their rights? Perhaps running that society into the ground, and rebuilding a new one, not once, but twice?
Our history disagrees with what you consider to be occasionally necessary or not necessary.
There is to say, people are way more inclined to act like they are oppressed, as it provides them benefits.
As long as crying victim (no matter if its real or not) results in attention and is rewarded, thats exactly what you get.
So how is someone who is oppressed supposed to get attention then? Simply ask pretty please to the very people oppressing them?
And if somebody cries victim while smashing windows in, looting stores and putting fire to buildings, i cannot take any of it serious, its completely impossible to have any meaningful "message" if its all about destruction and making absolutely everything worse for anybody.
So, someone crying victim while emptying an entire shipment of tea into a harbor would not be a meaningful message, historically?
The fact that the racism continues today and is not fixed shows that it's not a miniscule problem, and that it hasn't gone away on its own. That means we need to examine if proactive steps will prove better or more effective - because what we have been doing, is not working.
Actual problematic racism is already gone.
Law even goes as far as to give black people affirmative action, which is a form of racism in itself.
So it can very well be said that the pendelumn already swings in the other direction, making the supposed former racists into the actual people that face racism themselves.
The very idea that black "cant be racist" is mind boggling naive.
That is boggling, and naive, yes. Anyone can be racist.
BLM actively aims to make violence "ok" , like its not a problem at all, while simultaneously claiming the other kind of violence is bad. Both violence is bad, so stop it instead of instigating more of it!
BLM is not about making violence ok. It's about demanding change, for a continued injustice, which repeatedly continues to be ignored from a legal perspective, despite research and studies showing it to still be a problem. Violence has come into play in a remote and small subset of gatherings, due to the fact that peaceful protest over an extended period has failed. Repeatedly.
Completly wrong, either get your message PEACEFULLY across, or you just become a part of the problem on your own.
While this would be ideal, what happens when the oppressors refuse to listen to your peaceful protest? Historically speaking, well... examples abound. In our own history no less, and not that long ago.
You mean, like change against an oppressive Monarchy which treated some of its ctizens as inferior and denying them their rights? Perhaps running that society into the ground, and rebuilding a new one, not once, but twice?
This delusional believe is a core problem.
People blow their comparable little issues completely out of proportions and suddenly everything is a question of life and death, and in situations like that, everything goes, no matter how unthinkable evil it is.
We are neither living under a monarchy, nor is anybody keeping anybody hostage anywhere.
If somebody disagrees everyone can just leave, thats freedom in itself.
You dont even need money, just pack your belongings and go, a airline ticket is not free, but you can just keep walking if you truly want it.
Which is exactly what all the refugees are doing, leaving places they want to actually get away from.
Thats clearly NOT the case for the USA, as people in contrary come here instead and the vast majority of people that run away from actual bad countries think a lot more positive about America.
People that truly hate and despise this country dont do themselves a favor to stay here at all, nor do they anybody else a favor to drag them down with them and poison society ; nobody wins with people that just spread hate and terror, thats a net negative for everyone (and thats exactly why no country wants these people if they can choose who they let migrate, nobody in their right mind would want somebody in their house that actively plots the home owners demise).
So how is someone who is oppressed supposed to get attention then? Simply ask pretty please to the very people oppressing them?
Like any civilized person is expected to deal with problems.
First, fix them yourself in your personal circle.
(and thats already where lots of people fail, they just expect to be lifted and ascend to riches, without any work of themselves)
Write and get in contact with your major , governor or congress.
In a bunch of towns and cities there is even a very open ear from police officers to actively say what specifically bothers them and fix the problem right at hand.
If the town/city or even the state itself is not shaped to the wishes of your personal vision, theres plenty of places to move to.
The very first you do if your area is absolute trash, leave that place ; you cant get healthy with crime, drugs and misery all around you (and if you are part of that crime, drug, misery problem, leaving is actively good for anybody else in that environment too).
----
Theres nothing more pathetic than an incredible privileged individual that still cries all the time and demand support.
People that riot and steal, that then still demand money and help are just pathetic ... if thats acceptable, you just allow crime, and nobody in their right mind wants to live anywhere in which place crime is acceptable, absolute impossible to build anything up if there is no security, if your little shop you build up is trashed and smashed to pieces by people that just freak out at random, thats no place to get anywhere else than rock bottom ; and its even more insulting if these people then dare to blame you as the bad person that is oppressing them ... thats so fundamentally insane its beyond comprehension how anybody can get that low on a moral level of mutual respect for another human being.
----
Lets just assume a violent riot COULD be justified.
By that you open the door for basically everyone to go around and smash stores, burn down cars and attack people simply because they want to "protest".
Truly peaceful protest (and every legit protest fundamentally needs to be peaceful, or passively resisting, but never actively attacking anybody).
The moment people attack anybody, they lose any legitimacy in their argument and force themselves in a supremacy role, like their needs are more important than the needs of anybody else ... sorry, no, your needs are not more important at all, everyone has the rights to keep safe and nobody is allowed to hurt anybody else, destroy any property or disregard any social harmony simply because they dont feel like following the rules (rules that can be changed in an actual democratic process, which we and any other civilized country has, if you have an issue, you have to fight for it in the proper way, and while minorities should not be thrown under the bus, they also cannot force their needs into the majority, as that would completely undermine the democratic vote, if the minority can decide over the majority, people that feel that oppressed will flee, they always do and seek happiness elsewhere, as there is no point in stoking the fires everywhere, sometimes its way more intelligent to simply avoid conflict and not run towards anybody to punch them).
what happens when the oppressors refuse to listen to your peaceful protest? Historically speaking, well... examples abound. In our own history no less, and not that long ago.
Sure, why vote at all ? Why have any dialog at all.
Lets just DEMAND what we want and punch everyone into submission that disagrees.
Thats for sure a great way to ensure social harmony ...
Oh cmon , nobody can truly believe that with a straight face and advocate violence ... are you guys serious ? ...
By that logic people that fundamentally disagree should do what ?
Fight in a death match for their demands ?
Hows such a stupid idea going to be implemented ?
How can anybody remotely believe that this is like "the solution" ?
What ?
If a family disagrees should be kids attack their parents ?
Should the parents punch their children into submission because they demand they behave ?
Holy ***** people, violence is evil, and everyone that resorts to violence should absolutely understand that resorting to this savage animalistic behaviors is fundamentally wrong.
Such a world cannot work, Survival of the Fittest and blatant disregard for human life and property is utterly inexcusable, its a total no-go.
But yea, the indoctrinated people actually believe they have "no other choice" , as they are told and instigated to this violence, and the actual evil are the people that advocate and excuse this violence.
Cant you see how this makes absolutely anything worse ?
Seriously anybody that ever had any business can just laugh about the "Wage-Gap".
If countless details are ignorantly or intentionally left out, of course you will have men that earn more.
If a family has 1 full time working men and a wife at home or working part time, of course the men is making more money ; its even reasonable to do so, as the guy has to make money not for himself, but his entire family.
Issues arise as women (and especially black women) do not have a husband or father at their side. A single mom household has just 1 income, and that is rarely a 20+ year experience income and as culture currently is, women are the once that raise the children in the vast majority of cases.
You can argue that you dont like this culture, but the supposed wage gap is a symptom of many factors that are very well ignored.
But just basic logic denies that anybody that does equal work is paid less just "because".
I have employees and do you truly believe if i haggle with them for their wage or pay raise their gender has any meaning ?
(That said, women that are single moms tend to be more often at home, as children get sick, and more sick in general, pure statistics from my personal experience ; it quickly gets down to biological differences, men and women are simply not the same, and thats usually positive and not a problem)
From my personal experience an example:
- Men works 160 hours a month , 20h over time , 10 days sick a year.
- Women works 60 hours a month part time , 20h over time , 20 days sick (including sick days for children).
Its such a basic normal life example.
Theres no evil intention here, its just blatantly obvious that the men will make more money.
Even for higher paying jobs, the big money might come in after 20+ years of experience, without any breaks, constantly working at projects and pushing the company.
If women do that (and usually dont have children in the process) , they earn often way more than men do.
But if a 40 year old women decides she wants children that late, they might just quit the job that would pay extremely well and be a full time mom and work part time (and part time once again pays way less, if the company needs a full time project lead with that experience instead).
Pay gap for black people is even more nefarious. If you have a applicant with basically the same grades and one is asian the other black, the big problem here is affirmative action grounded. The black might be way worse than the asian in qualification.
Without affirmative action the grades would actually reflect their skill, but they get completely nullified and meaningless if somebody has to put much more work in their grades than somebody else, only because of affirmative action ; which is reason enough for me to absolutely speak against affirmative action, as i need the best person for the job and not play social justice advocate in my business.
Lots of stuff is well intended but actively becomes a burden and a problem in the REAL world, outside of just theory scholars that make up some fantasy that simply doesnt work in practice or produces problems they either didnt see or intentionally didnt want to see (which is a real issue, if a scholar is intentionally disregarding the facts in front of them, as they are not "allowed" to speak the truth, as somebody might feel oppressed by reality, happens way too often).
If a scientist cant speak their mind as they are oppressed by people that claim to be offended, the essence of science withers and dies slowly.
----
That is boggling, and naive, yes. Anyone can be racist.
People have conflicts and people for sure dont agree all the time.
Making EVERYTHING based in racism and every problem about racism doesnt do actual real racism any favor.
It got so far that racism itself as a word is redefined in a way that goes far beyond what the truly evil racism means.
Define racism:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Thats something basically everyone can agree on.
You would think ...
But some claim that not everyone can be racist.
Some people are magically not racist by default.
If somebody says "blacks cant be racist" its so insanely idiotic, that it borderlines becomes criminally naive to reality.
At the current time you simply have too much rioters and crazy people that flag themselves as BLM protesters that go way way too far and become actual terrorists.
Pushing any message with violence, insults and fear of mob justice is fundamentally wrong.
This kind of mob rule doesnt solve any problem, it leads to way more problems and people that are hurt by this will not look at BLM protests in sympathy, but disgust and increasingly counter-aggressive.
This kind of BLM activism produces the very issues it might try to think to stand against.
The idiotic idea that all the damage is covered by insurance is sinister and naively stupid.
The vast majority of small stores have no insurance, it doesnt cover anywhere close the damage they received.
If a police car is burned, who is paying for that ? Tax payers.
Every car burned costs us like anywhere around 37000 $ , every building burned down is even more expensive, people insured, police officers attacked all of this is expensive, it costs the tax payers money that will actively NOT go in programs that BLM should actually support, they hurt the very core they want to stand for, they build nothing and everything is way worse after the BLM mob leaves a place (they produce lots of trash and ever looked how the streets are ruined with
graffiti everywhere).
Clean your neighborhood, do actual good, do something productive.
Thats great, and the total opposite of destruction.
It's about demanding change, for a continued injustice, which repeatedly continues to be ignored from a legal perspective, despite research and studies showing it to still be a problem. Violence has come into play in a remote and small subset of gatherings, due to the fact that peaceful protest over an extended period has failed. Repeatedly.
"Systemic racism" is the fancy buzz word.
It has basically no meaning what so ever, as nobody is going to actually point the actual problem out, but just put everything they claim to be a problem under a mist of "Yea its systemic racism" , oh what exactly ? "Well you ..."
Its such nonsense.
There is prejudices against basically everyone, and some just do their utmost to foster these prejudices, by constantly seeking for problems, instead of actually doing something productive to help, they have a very real incentive to keep it going.
If i ask my black friends they are above all the racism talk, they are very well aware we are equal and they dont blame me or anybody else for anything, they get their asses up, work like anybody else and that alone fixes so much already.
If you have any kind of rock bottom people around you , either homeless, drug addicted or anything in that spectrum, people will try to avoid these people, in their best interest to not engage with them as its highly dangerous to get anywhere close to them (either because they are aggressive from the get go, criminal as they need money for drugs and all kinds of this issues).
Piling up misery like this in places is a sure fire way to make anything worse.
A community cannot survive with that much misery, somebody has to be strong enough to drag themselves out of it and build something up, so others can follow.
Just blaming others doesnt help nor solves any fundamental problems, it just keeps the people dependent and pushes them further away.
The existence of systemic racism in America is a fact, one made patently manifest by a simple observation of our founding document, which we uphold to be the very basis of the rule of law. That is to say, the U.S. Constitution did not tacitly accept the existence of slavery; it both legalized and codified it, and what you're seeing now is just the Nth example of that failure spilling over. Things have not dramatically changed for black people since 1776, or the 1860s, or 1921, or 1964. One need only look to history, objectively, and the facts will speak for themselves.
Furthermore, black people are not terrorists for exercising their constitutional prerogatives to assemble and redress of grievances. In many ways I find their willingness to continually put themselves in harms way imminently more patriotic than those who would shout them down and deny them their rights; I say this as a former service member, who at one point raised his hand and sworn an oath to the constitution. I also say this as a historian who is keenly aware of the parallels between the current movement(s) and the events which led our founding fathers to violently destroy millions of dollars in property (see: tea), an act which we revere them for. If you are concerned about the occasional propensity for violence (and I say occasional because, if you choose to look at the record, the protests have been mostly peaceful across the board), then I would encourage you to look at its source: the police have disproportionately instigated violence, often lethally, against black people in far greater numbers than they do anyone else*, and their continued reaction to protests against that very thing have only caused them to perpetrate even more violence. Telling a person that it's not okay to react violently, after being the subject of intense and unceasing violence for over two-hundred years, is tone deaf, hypocritical, and not constructive in the slightest. Telling a person that they should find a way to peacefully remedy their grievances through legal channels is simultaneously disingenuous and ignorant; there have been peaceful attempts, both inside and outside the 'system' to correct historical wrongs, and they have not worked. The fact that racism exists at all in this country, let alone in such absurdly large numbers, is proof of that. And finally, telling people that there are specific spaces in which they should voice their concerns, and nowhere else, is exactly how we got to this point here, on this message board. If every single public venue or social medium were closed to equitable discourse, nothing would change, and that's why nothing has changed, and continues to not change even as we speak. For over two-hundred years people have turned their backs on an inconvenient topic, because advocating for equity gets in the way of our leisure time. Shame on all of us.
My father retired as a peace officer after 30+ years on the force, and I exited the service after 6 long years in the airborne infantry. I revered my father as a human being, not for the work that he did but for the man that he was; at the end of the day, when he came home, there was nothing 'blue' about him. And in all the years he served our community, I never once heard him represent his duties or responsibilities as anything akin to what I'd done in the service. I was a soldier, and he was not. It was my responsibility to place myself in harm's way, and it was his responsibility to uphold the law, not punish people for wrongdoing - and I never got the sense that he comported himself otherwise. He passed away a year ago this October, from complications due to kidney failure, and that's a shame on multiple fronts; one, because losing a loved one always hurts, but also because we never got to have this kind of conversation face-to-face. I wish that I'd been able to ask him about his stance on the current political climate, and I wish even stronger that he'd have taken my side... but he was old guard, and on the rare occasions that I'm privy to my mother's Facebook account these days - which is absolutely brimming over with his fellow retirees - what I see absolutely disgusts me. Having been freed from their obligation to maintain a respectable character in public spaces, they've almost unanimously adopted attitudes that could charitably be called toxic. There is absolutely no regard for human life to be witnessed among them, especially for others who have transgressed their adoptive political boundaries. If you are not conservative, your life is forfeit. If you are a criminal, or charged as one (with or without due process), your life is forfeit. If you attempt to deprive somebody else of their property, your life is forfeit. And, sadly, this attitude is not an aberration, nor an exception to the rule; it is widely adopted by anyone who looks down upon the BLM movement, or who wishes to voice their support for the imagined 'thin blue line.' It's been said, in the defense of peace officers everywhere, that a few bad apples don't represent the whole bunch. Since this summer began, I've been straining to identify anyone who could categorically be described as a good apple, and I fear I've failed in that regard. Even in the face of wanton violence, perpetrated extrajudicially by authority figures charged with the protection of their community, nobody is standing up to their peers - and worse, they're choosing to defend them instead.
Suffice it to say, the police need to be defunded. They need to be de-militarized and stripped of their continued ability to wield lethal force without repercussion. We ask too much of them, and the proper response is not to overburden them with additional skill sets and equipment training that they can't possibly live up to, but to supplement their responsibility toward the community with people who are better able to proactively address our collective woes. We should certainly not be sending them in, armed like soldiers, to engage the general public when a) 90% of police responses occur after a crime has been committed, and b) only somewhere in the neighborhood of 14% of crimes get solved at all. Adding firearms to otherwise peaceful scenarios can only lead to unnecessary death, something that we should be trying to actively avoid as a society - at all costs.
---
*I can provide you with accurate data, if you're receptive.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Yes, its called affirmative action.
The only legal form of systematic racism in the USA.
For anything else everyone is equal before the law.
This is a sick disregard of all the achievements of the last century.
Before the law any people of color are equal, EXCEPT that black have the actual benefit of affirmative action.
There is literally no oppression at all.
You have to realize that violence is NEVER acceptable.
These disgusting excuses for violence are a total failure to any social harmony.
Jews are hunted for basically thousand of year, are they by your logic suddenly allowed to go around and slap people in the face?
In what kind of messed up world do you want to live in?
Simply put, any person that justifies their violence in a way like you suppose will put themselves in a role that ANYBODY else will dislike them.
Nobody wants to employee a person that justifies violence or insults against other people, and nobody should endure such infraction if you honor human dignity in the slightest.
People that act out like that are criminals and there is no excuse for going ballistic and terrorising your neighborhood because anybody claims oppressions of hundreds of years ago against generations they barely if at all remember.
Its a very dangerous delusion that makes social harmony impossible, as you cannot allow crimes and just wave them away like they dont happen.
Nobody has to "right the wrongs" of the generation before them.
Every life is a blank sleet.
You are not responsible for whatever your parents did and you are in no obligation at all to right whatever somebody claims they did.
And especially nobody is in the right to demand any of that from someone else.
If a person chooses freely on their own mind, thats entirely on themselves to decide.
Making demands and violently enforcing them is just blackmail, criminal and unjust ; such evil acts will be faced by opposition that will only result in more violence, more destruction, more regrets and more demands for the sins that will never be forgiven. Such a cycle needs to be broken as soon as possible and cannot be allowed to exist, as nothing, absolutely nothing positive can prosper in such a way, it just keeps getting worse for everyone involved.
This is an important principle to uphold, as otherwise we can hold millions of years against each other, why stop at the last 200 years? Its arbitrary and pointless to dwell in the past and the grudge against people that mean you no harm is a festering sickness that can never be allowed to manifest, as its just an endless spiral of vengeance, payback and all out war if a country as a whole does that.
Claiming that a group is guilty as a whole is also a problem.
You dont get in jail because your family member committed a crime and you should not be shunned for a lifetime because a family member did something (sadly that is often the case regardless as people do not act according to the law and still resort to vengeance and self-administered justice).
If this gets even expanded not just to the circle of family, but to a group of skin color, the guilt of association becomes yet again a spiral of vengeance and "justified" violence between the groups.
Its exactly what we see with the absolute insanity of violence between races, instead of drawing a line and resorting to the actual reality of the present.
There is no end to violence if people with an unhealthy amount of self-shaming cannot accept that there is no way to have any social harmony as long as people seek constant vengeance and retribution ; any healthy religion teaches that all the way.
People have to concentrate on building a positive relationship to each other, instead of embracing violence and mob rule that only seek to single out and destroy whoever is the enemy of the day.
Violence between civilians especially between brothers and sisters of the same nation is despicable, criminal and never justified as an act of aggression.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
There is no such thing as reverse racism. The continued denial of actual racism is, in fact, racist in and of itself.
Theoretically, but not in practice.
I have a BA in history from UCLA, and that is probably the lowest accolade among my peers in just this thread. What are your qualifications to be in a superior position of knowledge over me?
Nobody is advocating for or justifying violence; rather, we are making an attempt to understand its roots. The best way to eliminate violence is not to quash it with more violence, but to prevent it in the first place. This is a major social issue that requires a proactive approach, which cannot happen without a fundamental understanding of the core dynamics at play, or the history of social injustice. What this is patently not is a chicken-or-the-egg scenario; we know which form of violence came first, and it did not spring from the BLM protesters. If you had a vested interest in actually preventing real violence, you should be able to bring yourself to admit this as fact.
This is a disingenuous take on reality, no doubt being fueled by conservative media outlets (or worse, alt-right conspiracy theories). The protests have been, by and large, mostly peaceful. The occasional Fox News soundbite with a provocative fire raging in the background is not a fair, or realistic, representation of the ongoing movement.
Okay... I don't think anyone believes that 'blood guilt' actually exists, except as a knee-jerk defense to proposed equitable solutions. It's certainly not the same to say that generational poverty, its roots and associated consequences, exists and is patently observable. Black people are suffering as a direct consequence of past injustices, and while it's unfair to hold contemporary Americans accountable (and again, I see nobody advocating such), it doesn't mean we can't enact justice on their behalf. Black people can be raised to a higher station in society without other people (chiefly, whites) losing theirs. Society isn't a zero-sum game, but the perception that it is continues to fuel both personal and systemic racism.
Try explaining that to someone born into poverty.
And yet it is critical to observe the past, so that we better understand how we got to this point, and so that we can avoid the errors of the past.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
To start, I can totally understand what you and the site staff are trying to aim for. One of the wonderful (and at times, terrifying) things about the internet is the level of anonymity it brings. Without a face or genuine name, people can interact in ways that the politics of the outside world would never otherwise allow. An African American Jew could have a lovely conversation regarding scones with a Neo-Nazi on a baking forum without either of them realizing what had just happened. People in opposed countries at war might give thumbs up to the same youtube comments. A person might unknowingly reblog a video uploaded by their most hated nemesis. Much like a thanksgiving meal, things can reach a certain level of peace and equilibrium as long as politics aren’t brought into the matter.
With that said…
1. While I appreciate that you are short-staffed at the moment, I am curious whether anything has been considered to address that. It doesn’t look like the moderator recruitment thread has been updated in quite some time and starting an active recruitment drive in a more visible area may be useful for filling gaps. Likewise, I’m wondering if the application process has been adjusted to account for the recent difficulties with polarized politics (as I’m assuming that the goal wouldn’t be to recruit a bunch of people who want to police certain political views and turning a total blind eye to others). While it’s been said before, it really does seem that you’ll need additional eyes to maintain the sort of equilibrium you seek and dissuade vigilantism.
2 Edited. While I in no way to believe this to be the case, it is easy to interpret actions taken from a desire to not have thread after thread devolve into largely off-topic arguments as a desire to not want to annoy/alienate or deal with/acknowledge bigoted individuals within the community. When someone’s incendiary statements goad someone into making someone post inappropriate political messages… What’s the plan? Are you willing to accept the unfortunate implications of most responses (implicitly encouraging people to do that more, appearing to favor bigotry or oppose those standing up against it, etc.)? You have talked a lot about being able to make civil communication in a way that doesn’t cause people to dig in their heels but what is the ultimate fate of people who insist upon confrontation?
3. I do want to take time to acknowledge that things have been handled fairly well so far, considering your available resources. Outside of this one thread (and another with a very problematic title… which you changed), I have seen fairly few problems in recent times. While I feel that there are issues worth discussing, the fact that things have been largely moving along as normal is worth noting. Thanks as always.
If people just blame others for their own situation nothing is going to change for them.
Nothing stops any person in the USA to get their ass up each morning and start working, except their own lazy attitude.
If nobody wants to employ you, its probably not racism, nobody wants a person that is just blaming everyone else all the time.
Nobody that is innocent wants to be blamed as a racist, that is degrading, insulting and the person that speaks the branding of racism better be EXTREMELY sure of their verdict, otherwise they just brand themselves as a fool and nobody wants to employ or even be around such people.
These pathetic implications of undermining a dialog is exactly what people really dislike about your attitude.
I dont know what it is, a form of mental block, narcissism or the some believe of morally superiority, but let me give you that advise (which you are free to ignore), bring your statements and never undermine another persons credibility in such a blatantly cheap and insulting way, the other will always react with disrespect towards you, which eliminates a lot of good will and ultimately kills the entire dialog ; and then only retreat or physical conflict remains, which is exactly what should be avoided in the first place.
----
Many things BLM advocates where tried and tested in Communist Regimes and you can bet it was always done with the best interest in mind, and it failed miserable all the time.
There is just one thing to enforcing equity with violence, and thats the misery of all its people ; so everyone is equally miserable, as its impossible to archive a state that is just wonderful for everyone, scarcity of resources prevent that from happening (we will have to wait for some kind of Star Trek Replicator to become reality, till then its a market of scarce resources in every way, and whoever can deliver what is needed, gets the benefits from doing so).
----
Equality of opportunity is the goal that is archive able, manageable and positive to everyone.
Equity is not a goal worth pursuing, as not everyone is capable to do everything and everyone is mainly responsible for their own life and prosperity.
If somebody is just worse at school compared to someone else, that might just how it is, and people better make the best out of their situation and carve themselves a way away from bad influence.
People that knowingly stay in bad influence and blame only others are at fault themselves.
People that do not do that will always find a way to better themselves and by doing so uplift their family and their surroundings.
The constant barrage of screeching outside induced shaming and flagellating leads only to festering depressions and hopelessness.
People that are always told they are victims will not prosper, even if they could, as they will not find the will to even try in the first place.
If people are rewarded for blaming others, dragging them down with them, its the worst outcome for everyone if depression becomes the norm.
If a entire nation becomes depressed, nothing becomes better, everything gets worse.
----
Police is put in charge to enforce the law.
If people are going to be arrested its expected from them to let them arrest without violence.
In that case no violence is needed.
Only if the person is acting out, force is used.
Police Officers are at risk for themselves, people surrounding the area and still have to act according to regulations.
Suspects are often under drugs or have mental problems that make them act rash and dangerous.
A person might at any moment act out, run away, disregarding any traffic or other people ; that is to be avoided at all cost.
If police fails to do so, we end up with people that flee an arrest, take a hostage, blindly run in traffic to lead to crashes and potentially people dying that have nothing to do with the person to be arrested.
The reasonable way in any police interaction is to be calm, follow orders and not act aggressive in any way ; thats the only way to ensure that nothing gets out of control for anybody (and in these cases chances are basically 0% that anything happens to the police or the person being arrested).
The current mindset that people have to defend themselves with all means against the police just because they are arrested leads to all the misery and conflict we see right now and at any moment in the latest history.
Police are people too, they make mistakes, they have a bad day, and they might even in the most dire circumstances be criminals themselves (and lets face it, the vast vast majority is not, but BLM is actively trying to paint a picture that every police officer is the enemy of mankind itself).
And like always, the bad apples spoil the entire basket.
That is true for the police like it is for protesters and every person on this planet.
Defunding the police like it is currently done is actively producing more crimes, more violence, even death and murder.
If the police is labeled the enemy as it currently is, the people have no defenders and law cannot be uphold, absolute chaos and destruction are the result ; and thats just terrible for everyone (and nothing positive is coming out of that, its bad for everyone and there are no winners, only losers, dead people that pile up and a growing hate in people against each other).
If BLM wants to do anything positive at all, they should focus on reducing crime.
With less crime, less police are needed.
With less crime you get less potentially dangerous conflicts with the police.
For not even a second people should believe that a poor white family has even a glimmer of advantage over a poor black family.
Sadly enough poor families tend to have criminal male fathers, single moms, drugs and lots of other misery involved, that just gets worse and worse if there is nobody like the police around that actually provides a form of enforcing the law for the people that are in desperate need of it.
BLMs priorities are not reasonable.
They want to focus entirely on a problem of police violence that is so minuscule compared to the rampant crimes produced by drugs and many years of destructive family politics.
And under the mantle of BLM plenty of very dangerous ideologies manifest themselves.
Destructive ideas and agendas that bring many more problems with them as they try to solve.
If DefundThePolice only results in more crime and violence, than no rational person can advocate for that.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
For the record, the "purity test" here is that a contingent of posters don't want to see bigoted attitudes shared on the forums without challenge (or, if egregious enough, moderator action). Is that unreasonable? I ask because the phrase "purity test" is usually thrown around as a way to frame advocacy around higher standards as unreasonable.
As well, it is important to note that this forum isn't like a shop or a car wash, it's a place where opinions, ideas, and discussion are encouraged and platformed. There ought to be different standards for behavior, lest the forum become a space that's unwelcoming for some - it's why the forum has rules and moderation of behavior at all. This is more akin to allowing homophobic street preachers use your space to spread their hate and ignorance (he said, three blocks from a local business doing exactly that right this minute), and telling counter protesters they can't pushback or say anything without actions taken by your business to stop them.
I think your first question is an important one, it's something I've been thinking about as well. Your second question, though, is framed oddly. Do you you think its the position of the people advocating in this thread that people with alt-right/bigoted views should just be removed from the site by bans or harassment? Anyone who feels otherwise can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that we're pushing for more leeway to actively engage in good faith discussion (so long as it remains respectful). The bigots can stay, it's their bigotry that ought to go and there's value in giving space to posters to engage and challenge those views, demonstrate support for marginalized people, and help give people (whether people actively engaged in the discussion or viewing it as a lurker) something to think about. Many people in this site's presumed userbase (predominantly young, predominantly white, majorly male) have expressed that space to actively engaged concepts openly and without condemnation helped them get out of the alt-right's gravitational pull. Whole articles have been written about the phenomenon (particularly in the case of YouTubers, Tik Tok-ers, and other social media avenues of educating/debating a topic).
Simply removing people because they have problematic views is a waste of an opportunity to engage and educate - if not that poster, than the many watching the conversation who may share similar opinions.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Whatever is discussed in this thread, I can imagine no future in which a discussion here allows one side to argue "their side" of why a given orientation or gender identity is "unnatural" or why a given ethnicity/race should be exported. Instead, the conversation will inevitably consist of one side trying to provide facts and the other side relentlessly trying to poke holes in those facts. In fact, just look at the exchanges regarding the very existence of structural racism and the origins of the BLM movement on this very thread. One person provided a bevy of resources... and the other person apparently ignores them.
As a culture (at least in the USA), we are at a point where the nature and origin of FACTS is a political issue and science is seen as "only part of the story".
If you feel that there are some moderates on this site or people who may be going with the flow without giving things personal thought, I can respect that. If politics is opened up as an acceptable topic, however, I don't know how the needed conversations can realistically take place between people mindlessly shouting the exact same points past one another on loop. I would expect people to treat those threads as contests to be "won" by sharing the right information rather than a space to gain information.
Edit: I apologize for overlooking the articles that you refer to regarding giving people a safe place to engage without condemnation. Need to work harder on that reading comprehension. With that said, I stick by what I say when I think that a lot of people would blindly talk past one another. I honestly feel that type of conversation would need some careful (likely mod-intensive) curation. For example, allowing people to PM questions and concerns to be presented anonymously as opening statements, giving time for people on both sides to anonymously submit whatever information or arguments support their own side, and having someone coordinate that info into a second (and possibly third) post. No direct posts from any users. No devolution into personal insults getting posts scrubbed or threads locked. No pages upon pages of people shouting the same thing back and forth in an attempt to out-argue each other. The facts and arguments go up... and there it is.
Thank you.
I've not heard of the position that businesses should be boycotted for serving neo-Nazis. If this is a real thing that people have advocated for, how charitable is it to interpret the intent of this proposal to go on a witch hunt against any and all businesses that may have accidentally served neo-Nazis? I find that unlikely. Now if there is some obvious way of knowing that someone is a neo-Nazi (and I think there are some clear indicators), it might be reasonable to expect the business to refuse service for much the same reason we expect people to not cross picket lines during a strike. I also would like to add that, just because one individual wouldn't be bothered by a neo-Nazi patronizing a car wash at the same time as them does not mean it would be unreasonable for another individual, especially belonging to one of the groups neo-Nazis target, to be uncomfortable. You not being uncomfortable in that situation of the neo-Nazi merely being there just means you have a higher threshold of tolerance to neo-Nazis, which could be granted by any number of things (I hesitate to mention privilege because of its overzealous invocation in political discussion nowadays, but it seems to apply here).
I also firmly condemn the idea of harassing people with problematic views. What I am in favor of is those views being criticized adequately in terms of their substance so that the problem they are 'problematic' about gets resolved. Likewise, banning on the basis of views alone would seem like an excessive measure. People who have problematic views are prevalent on these forums. I believe the most effective way of dealing with this is to have the community involved as a whole in delineating what views are unacceptable on a more informal basis with moderators providing broad guidance. In other words, a community-building activity. In this thread we already have the example of someone claiming that systemic racism doesn't exist except against white people, which is not the first time this person has made that claim. Presumably, nothing will convince him otherwise. I'm comfortable with allowing this view to be discussed without bannings because, on account of its fundamental irrationality, it is easy to refute. That doesn't necessarily change its rhetorical sway among those predisposed to find it a compelling argument, but every time this comes up and it is refuted there is a small increase in clarity among the background audience. Irrational views can only take root in murkiness of thought, and the internet has a lot of potential to bring clarity to broad audiences. But when discussion is shut down two things happen: those irrational views fester with resentment and become more dangerous, and greater clarity is not attained. More clarity means more agreement, so we can go back to disagreeing about Magic cards.
I don't think you were out of turn, I just wan't clear on what you were saying. I think a good faith discussion is one where people give legitimate consideration to the points raised and reasoning provided and don't simply use the opportunity to proselytize or attack people.
I don't disagree with your latter point, and I think that comes with time. It may never come, honestly, though I still think there's value in trying to facilitate that. I literally teach pro-SJW topics in small, rural communities in a particularly conservative province and I have been yelled at, had slurs shouted at me, and I've been threatened (down to being doxxed and having fake dating profiles created to paint me as sexual pervert/pedophile). Doesn't stop me from trying to educate and empathize, if anything it just makes the successes all the sweeter. And those successes start with not assuming people are too entrenched in the opinions to be reached, that may be true for some, but not for all. It just takes the right approach. Questions over accusations, empathy over condemnation, engagement over judgment.
Which I would argue is not engaging in the conversation in good faith. And it is worth pointing out that while individual posters may refuse to engage in reading resources/studies/etc, others (be they active participants or lurkers) will.
Haha, given what I heard today from the street preacher I mentioned upthread, it's not just the USA.
It can be exhausting to engage with people who refuse to entertain facts, but it can be done. It's a matter of understanding them on a human level and meeting them where they're at. Challenging? Yes. Frustrating? Oh **** is it ever. Possible? Absolutely. But it is why I prefer to be paid because it is significant effort, so I understand why it's daunting in a community like this where the labor is unpaid.
For what it's worth, I think a lot of the posters on the site are likely not finished baking, politically-speaking. And even those who have more firmly-defined political opinions are able to change. Your mileage may vary on the likelihood of that change, but if I can get people in rural Alberta to understand that trans people aren't evil, deranged, and/or dangerous, I believe people on MTGS can be reached about topics of bigotry.
On the realistic probability of these conversations happening in a productive way, I share your concerns. Posters can barely express an opinion (positive or negative) about a card, set, or deck without someone trying to prove them wrong and the community has developed a toxic reputation as a result. But we've had room for these conversations before, the key ingredient is role modeling behavior and moderating/facilitating with finesse. This community can absolutely do that.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
The American myth of the rugged individual, the self-made man, is just that: a myth. The unspoken truth about capitalism is that in order for there to be winners, there must be losers. The poverty cycle is real, the wage gap is real, and systemic racism is real. People suffer because of the circumstances they are born into, and the obstacles that society places before them, not always just the choices they consciously make for themselves.
And the people who work three jobs just to get by, what sage advice do you have for them?
You're absolutely right, it's a hard pill to swallow, but if you don't want to be called racist... then don't be racist. I understand that our natural tendency as human beings is to be defensive when confronted with a hard truth, but you ultimately have two choices; deny that truth, or grow as a human being. For my part, I admit that it is extremely difficult to facilitate these conversations for just that reason. Before you can be honest with me, though, you have to be honest with yourself.
I would argue that the only thing undermining our dialogue (if it can truly be called that) is your tenuous grasp of history and sociology. You have my credentials, I gave you an opportunity to air yours. In all sincerity, I would really like to know where you get your information from. The fact that you keep dodging the subject is... telling?
I can support any assertion that I make with evidence if / when called upon to do so, and I expect my argumentative partners to be able to do the same. It is not unfair, given the fact that we are debating facts well within my wheelhouse, to ask where you get your information from. If you choose to shy away when confronted with a simple question, then you really can't blame anyone else for sabotaging your position.
In all honesty, I applaud your bravery for posting here. You've chosen to engage a thread full of people who are highly educated on the subject, and my hope is that you take something valuable away from it.
This whole 'antifa' thing I keep hearing about reeks of McCarthyism; another good reason for us to observe history, I think. If you can substantiate a comparison between BLM and communism, I'd love to hear it. Do you have a link for me?
I'm not sure why you think being equal trumps being fair, or that fairness isn't a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. Maybe we just hold different values, and my values include caring about other people as much as I care about myself. Does that make me less American? I'm starting to think it does.
I will no doubt be the umpteenth person to share this simple fact with you here: equity is a precursor to equality, and thus you cannot have the latter without the former. The entire point of the BLM movement is that the inertia of history has made equality all but impossible to achieve in a single generation; we must take measured steps to rectify the mistakes of the past, which continue to ripple through modern society.
That's the common argument against equity programs, but it fails to take into account the barriers that people face in their daily lives, barriers which they often have absolutely no control over. We are not born in a vacuum.
... what? Seriously... what?
The mentality that the police are 'in charge' is the exact sort of carte blanche that puts them above the law. They are not in charge so much as they are endowed with certain responsibilities toward their respective communities, responsibilities which this summer has demonstrated they are woefully ill equipped to fulfill. There are civil rights which cops are obligated to respect and adhere to in the line of duty, even when - or especially when - initiating an arrest, because even the courts sometimes admit that cops don't always act in good faith. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that champions of the police and the 'thin blue line,' the people who consider themselves the most patriotic, are the ones so eager and willing to concede their rights (and those of others) for absolutely no good reason at all.
Have we been watching the same videos all summer? Because I've seen a lot of grotesque and unnecessary deaths at the hands of police officers, straight from their own body cams. No, violence is not needed, and the bar for lethal response needs to be raised to the highest possible standard.
It's a job, and if they can't handle it they should quit. I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who intentionally places themselves in harms way because we've empowered them to shoot their way out of a bad situation that could have been avoided in the first place. And if they're not concerned enough about the mortal consequences of their actions, they should at least be concerned about the legal and civil consequences, which as of right now are virtually nonexistent.
An excellent reason to move funding away from military equipment for the police and toward people who are qualified to manage these situations without an assault rifle. Drugs and mental illness simply do not rise to the level of concern that warrants being executed on the street.
Slippery slope fallacies like these are the reason we train officers to imagine that they could be killed at any moment, the unfortunate consequence of which is a frequent escalation of force in situations that never should have warranted it. The truth is that 90% of police responses occur after a crime has been committed, and there is no longer an ongoing danger to the officer or the victims. Why, then, do they need to drag an SUV full of combat equipment around with them everywhere? I'll tell you why: because we still haven't gotten past the specter of the Hollywood shootout that occurred over 20 years ago. Legislation passed in the aftermath of that notorious event proved that the solution to gun violence isn't more guns, it's actually less guns... and yet here we are.
*sigh*
Google Daniel Shaver, watch the body cam footage, and then come tell me if you still feel that way.
I really don't think the police need you to make excuses on their behalf. Their entire job is to make good decisions under stress, decisions that are supposed to protect lives and safeguard the community. If they can't do that they should quit before they endanger themselves or others, or be prepared to face serious legal and civil repercussions. There is simply no excuse for poor performance when it costs other people their lives.
Do you know what 'blue flu' is? Probably not, because every time it happens, the world doesn't devolve into chaos. Defunding the police and channeling that money back into the community will go considerably further towards preventing future crime than arming police officers with combat weapons ever will.
I agree... and I suspect so do most BLM protesters, but I also fear you're coming dangerously close to either spinning them as terrorists again, or laying the foundation for a 'black on black violence' argument. If you really want to know why crime exists in such high numbers in impoverished areas, or why it's tracked at all, we can have that conversation too.
They should, because privilege is a patently observable phenomenon.
Have you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Harper Lee is a phenomenal writer. Can't say I recommend the followup, though.
Ah, here we go. The old tried and true 'it's not their skin color, it's their culture' argument. It's still racist, because it completely ignores all of the systemic factors that lead to a power imbalance in society.
Perhaps the single most constructive thing Ben Shapiro has ever done is read the lyrics to WAP, because at least that made me laugh.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Our goal here should be in looking at how to best structure what kind of discussion should be had on the site, and how to respond to such things when they do arise, and how to prevent these things from disturbing the discussions about Magic.
Since this discussion is inherently political, and will require definitions and even discussions of current events in order to support or explain positions, I accept that there will be inherent political discussion in this thread - but please try to keep the end goal of how this can tie into the improvement of the site at least somewhere in mind. What I would like to avoid is simply having a migration of Political Debate into this thread, where it might drown out others who have questions or input for the site.
Thank you.
I'll try to read through and address the more political posts a bit later.
===
Thank you Rosy Dumplings for joining the thread!
What you have said is the hopeful ideal, and what we hope to strive for. We do know that ideals are often just that - ideal, however I feel it is important to still strive and aim for that ideal, even while we must keep our sights, and respect, on reality.
1 - We have attempted to revitalize the recruitment threads, as well as post some new threads in areas that are also lacking. Sadly, this kind of 'passive' recruitment has not yielded any results, as people are more likely to simply gloss over them. We have been in discussion as to how to best take a more active recruitment role, and the Rumor Mill is currently our top priority for it. We hope to reach out to several prominent members of the Community, and solicit some feedback and recommendations from them. We have also reached out to several users for nominations of other prominent members who are active, who we will then reach out to with the same request for feedback, ideas, and nominations.
We hope to use this information to identify and build up a kind of 'map' of active users who care about the community and are well respected within the community; from there we will reach out to several that stand out, and see if they would be receptive to taking a more active role.
This process is a new idea, so we're still working through it and learning as we reach out, but our hope is that this will lead to finding someone passionate, respected, and committed to the community.
2- This is always the difficulty of discussions overall, and especially over the internet. While I would love that everyone be able to approach every conversation calmly and politely - the truth is that not all people do. As moderators, our tools are a bit limited. From the punitive side, we have the ability to infract users, or remove them from the site, either temporarily or permanently. Punitive actions however, are not the best way to change behavior.
I believe this is where the staff, myself included, can improve more. When discussions veer off course and get heated, we still need to step in and take actions to correct the course if possible, or close the thread if needed and other courses don't work. We do still need to issue warnings and tickets to language that crosses the line.
Where I feel we can improve is our language and messaging when these actions take place. Explaining why a thread gets closed, or why a certain position or line is not acceptable. Rather than handing out simple punitive measures, to ensure that our actions are also educational to the best of our abilities. This can be difficult, as this takes more effort and time - but I believe this would be a good and necessary step.
3- Thank you for your kind words. It is good to know that we are having a positive impact, even if we realize that their is always room for improvement.
What I meant is that while each staff member obviously has their own views and biases, this should ideally not impact their capability to enforce the rules and views of the site, or to act with respect and dignity towards others, even when those views or biases might be challenged on a personal level.
If that makes sense?
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I'm interested in what the educational approach by moderators would look like. Rosy Dumplings proposed a solution of submitting arguments to moderators to parse out as a third party. What I've proposed is much more informal and allows posters to engage directly with content.
Generally when a post is reported, there's an option for a small comment on the report, correct? If moderators direct us to place our remarks in the report with the understanding that some of this content will be represented by the moderator's actions in the thread, this would be a great improvement. Ideally, I would still like to engage with direct discussion. Or at least, for forum members to be able to discuss the reported content. If there was some kind of option to open up a public report for discussion which would flag on a post and be approved by a moderator to generate a new thread (or some other thread-like medium) clickable from the original post (blocking quotability), and in which the reported person is permitted to offer a defense, I see this solving several problems. With respect to the difficulty for moderators to generate an educational response, they can reference the discussion of the issue and represent the general premises in that discussion in moderator remarks. The original thread would remain clean of off-topic posts. And the community gets to be involved in discussions. This might mean a more moderation-intense form of discourse but there could be higher standards set in place for the format. Participation in public reports would be treated as a privilege, requiring a certain length of membership to prevent sock puppets, rescinded by a community mechanism (but reinstate-able by moderators) to discourage misbehavior so that moderator workload is kept as light as possible. Moderators would need to stay on top of the requests to open public reports so that discussion doesn't spill out into the original thread but could let discussion in the public report proceed for up to two days before weighing in.
Yep! Impartiality is an important ideal but it can be hard to achieve in practice.
While we understand and are sensitive that #BlueLivesMatter has been coopted as a counter-movement, and can be used dismissively in counter to #BLM, we feel that the Movement itself is not explicitly a counter-movement based on its history and formation. Just as we do not hold how other groups have coopted #BLM in ways that do not reflect upon the primary movement, so too should the coopted uses of the #BlueLivesMatter not be held against the movement itself.
Context will of course matter in all situations. Using any slogan in a manner to incite aggression, dismiss others, or otherwise harass, troll, or violate our policies will not be supported.
This is a complicated topic, and the decisions made regarding it are nuanced. We are receptive to hearing any feedback from our users, especially to how they are affected by these topics and statements. If you have any concerns, please let members of the staff know your concerns or how these statements affect you or reflect your own experiences.
Thank you,
-bobthefunny
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I'd be curious to know what the site owners' opinions on police violence is - whether they condone, disprove of, or perceive it at all. Rhetorical question: what's the value of a life given in service to a fundamentally racist institution? Not to be crass or cruel - because I do value all life (insofar as living is concerned), and do not condone violence for any reason - but if I may draw a historical comparison: a Nazi soldier jumping on a grenade to spare his squadmates might be noble in the abstract, but ultimately does not redeem the greater cause they're fighting for. Again, the purpose of a peace officer is supposed to be the service and protection of their community (it's in their name!), but recent events have shed some unfortunate light on the very grim reality facing people in certain communities. It would be charitable, I think, to characterize police conduct as merely punitive in nature; in many situations I would call it outright criminal. While the loss of a human life is tragic under any circumstance, if we continue to uphold peace officers for self-sacrifice in the line of duty, we are then also promoting and perpetuating the racist institution they serve.
For what it's worth, I categorically reject the notion that there is any such thing as a 'blue life' - and I think I can attest to that better than most. Only half a shade darker than my own natural olive hue, my father was by all accounts simply a white guy with an occasionally dangerous job. I say occasionally because, in all the years he worked, my family and I were never kept in suspense by the prospect that he might not return home some tragic night. The sort of morbid stories my own students ask for when I disclose my military service were likewise in short supply; there was simply nothing to be said about violent encounters, and nothing I've seen or read since has led me to believe that life-threatening violence is a common occurrence for other peace officers. Despite my example above, I also reject the notion that peace officers are anything remotely akin to soldiers. I say that not just because I'm opposed to their deployment and use of combat firearms, but because they have a job they can walk away from at any time, without repercussion. Once I signed my contract, raised my hand and swore on the constitution, I no longer had any such right or privilege. Whether by virtue of my conscience, cowardice, or any belief in my own tactical expertise, any refusal to obey direct orders would have resulted in swift imprisonment. End of story. And for all of that, while my reintegration back into civilian life has been mostly positive, it is not representative of the way veterans are generally treated by society. We're venerated to some degree, yes, but it's merely lip service; I get one free meal a year on Veteran's Day, the same exact discount on movie tickets that any person with a student ID gets, and sometimes a convenient parking spot at the local Lowe's. I take umbrage with the fact that my service is used as a patriotic dog whistle to deny other people their constitutional rights - I swore to uphold the constitution, and that includes the right to protest and redress of grievances. If you don't like something patently wrong with America, the democratic answer is to fix it, not be bullied into leaving the country.
Do you know what my greatest sacrifice was? Not life, limb, or eyesight - I came out relatively healthy, physically speaking. No: for six long years I was an object, a possession of the United States, the very definition of government issue. I slept where the army wanted me to sleep, for however long they wanted me to sleep for*; I ate what the army wanted me to eat, when they wanted me to eat it; I lived wherever I was told - in which city, in which barracks, in which country; I carried whatever the army told me to carry, no matter how ultimately useless; and, too often begrudgingly, I was afforded healthcare with the constant threat of repercussion for being human and weak. I almost washed out of basic training the first time for coming down with bronchitis. Heaven help you if you had to stand before your 1SG and explain to him why you needed to attend sick call in the morning (this was the same guy who denied me, or attempted to deny me, half of my mandated convalescent leave after major surgery). All of my parts were there, but I seldom felt like a person. Anyone who outranked me could, at any given time, be given cause to outright ruin my life if I'd done something to offend them, such is the power and authority granted by the military chain of command. And for all of that, I haven't seen a single #GreenLivesMatter sticker anywhere, despite the fact that more military personnel die from suicide every year than in combat. Why is that? If we go so far as to demote military service to being just 'a job,' and there are many different kinds of dangerous jobs, why do we feel the need to advocate for only one of those jobs? Why is the one dangerous job being advocated for, in diametric opposition to BLM, the only job accused of perpetuating violence against that exact same group? I do not buy the hollow excuse that a historically harmful force can be co-opted into something positive with mere token gestures, nor do I understand how any #___LivesMatter can be construed as anything but a response to #BLM. You're right, context matters; the expression of #BlueLivesMatter here, on this site, represents a counter to my own personal attempts at awareness. Perhaps you should take into account the history of this site when determining that context.
I'm lucky for having suffered so little in comparison to those who come back with debilitating mental or emotional disorders. I will not bother to expound on the very real harm that PTSD poses to those genuinely afflicted by it, except to point out one tragic fact: the video that I shared with you in private, bob, and that you watched - do you know what happened to that police officer? The one who had the phrase "You're f*cked" etched onto his patrol rifle? He was acquitted two years ago and retired on a pension of $2,500 a month for PTSD. Woe unto those who sympathize with such a cop and not with the victims.
You know what? I'm inclined to share that same video here. It's not work safe, it's not family friendly, but I will suffer another infraction - my very last, if need be - to draw awareness to such a grotesquely topical piece of evidence, one that even I hadn't seen until just last week. Suffice it to say, no amount of training can ever be held responsible for making someone into a monster - but it certainly can enable them. I'm a grown man, a combat veteran. I've survived rolled over humvees, mortar attacks, and jumping out of perfectly good aircraft, and this made me weep; I cannot bring myself to watch it again. Do so at your own risk.
My point, or one of my many points, is that there is simply no good reason to uphold and venerate peace officers for sacrifices that they do not have to make. The law, the courts, and the unions have largely seen to it that an officer cannot generally be held responsible for their actions, no matter how grotesquely inadequate, because of the danger inherent to absolute worst case scenarios. We push them, as a society, to be glorified heroes, to be that off-duty cop who swoops in and saves an entire airport at Christmastime, or runs some street thug out of the local bodega before buying a pack of Fruity Bubblicious, all the while unaware of how dangerous it is - for cop and bystander alike - to arm them with a reason to bypass all good sense. Let me draw you an analogy: I was stationed in North Carolina**, and while I was there I tested for and received a concealed carry permit - a document that allowed me to carry a firearm, concealed on my person, in the 30 different state that hold reciprocity with NC. Under NC law, you must give a would-be assailant every opportunity to retreat before engaging them with lethal force, or be liable unto the law yourself, such is the value of life which generally predicates the law. You also cannot goad someone into a fight with you, while you are armed, and then respond with lethal force - that's outright murder, with all of its associated punishments. Some years after I received that permit - and some many years ago from this current point in time - a black kid by the name of Trayvon Martin was shot and killed for no greater crime than walking through the wrong neighborhood. Not the first racially motivated crime to be committed, and certainly not the last. George Zimmerman, no doubt emboldened by the fact that he was carrying a firearm, harassed Trayvon Martin until he snapped... and wound up dead as a consequence of Zimmerman's poor decision-making faculties. If Trayvon Martin had genuinely posed a threat, and George Zimmerman hadn't been armed, do you think he still would have considered putting himself in harm's way just to accost some random passerby? I sincerely doubt it. Trayvon Martin was murdered, no matter what the Florida courts have to say about it. Now instead of just one George Zimmerman, imagine you have an entire force of like-minded individuals, and one of those forces in every city, in every state, in the entire United States: men and women armed and emboldened, pushed by society to rush into conflict at a moment's notice, even when retreat is especially warranted. Men and women who are supposed to be held accountable to the same moral precepts which governed my own possession of a firearm in public, and yet are endowed with privileges above and beyond the law. Watch every video published since this summer of nightmares began, and tell me how many times you see a victim of police violence actually posing a threat to someone else before the cop escalates the situation into a lethal one. Give me a count: how many times could the cops have just walked away without any loss of life? Seriously, do it.
---
*Before I left the service, we had a rash of Article 15s leveraged against some lower enlisted in my battalion. Apart from their demotion and reduced pay, they were subjected to 40 days of extra duty: after the regular duty day ended at ~1700, they went to work for battalion staff until 0200... and then had to be present at reveille again at 0630. Repeat again for 5 days out of the week. On weekends they got to sleep in until 0900, though!
**One of the first examples of organized policing in the United States actually occurred in North Carolina in the 1700s. They were charged with "prevent[ing] slave rebellions and enslaved people from escaping." (credit to Wikipedia)
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Your perceived problem of police violence is minuscule at best, facing the vast violence and crimes.
Mistakes result in tragic events, that will always be the case and while they cannot be belittled, they have to be served by justice of the court in a proper manner, not a wild witch hunt and destruction of anything and anybody just to satisfy some savage need of vengeance.
Media push the mobs to violence, which is a much bigger threat to humanity than any police violence could ever be.
Police serve the people, they give the lawful protection and people feel save around them (yes even black people, the vast majority will not condemn the police, but welcome them, especially in areas that are crime ridden).
And guess what, especially the crime ridden areas (with people under drugs, mental and physical health crisis and all kinds of issues) will absolutely need a minimal form of law and order to not fully fall to anarchy and chaos.
What we see, when anarchist gangs and mobs riot the streets is the absolute HELL, its like a war zone and nobody should suffer to live under such circumstances.
And the worst part of it, its completely manufactured, people just lose their minds and abandon all basic principles of peace and harmony, they give in for hate and a very perverse form of justice in bloodshed and violence.
If anybody starts a spiral of violence it will never end and just get worse.
All fundamental conflicts get down to that. Somebody has to forgive, and if they cant, they and all they love will suffer for it (in this world and after).
Defunding the people that swore and oath to serve and protect is complete inversion of help, it sabotages the work of the police and lets them face insane violence without the proper tools to face them.
While the police does that job, politics, especially the local politics have to create the means for social help.
That is NOT the job of the police, and right now, especially in the big cities, police is simply send to anything, regardless of if they are trained to handle the problem ; and that will as we see again and again lead to problems as people with less training will not be equipped to handle very stressful situations, which they cannot foresee to happen.
Right now people will intentionally provoke the police, put them in dangerous situations intentionally, stress them further and constantly ; and then when they finally get what they wanted, they will film that last 5 minutes, upload it and make it the new story of the week.
This trend is pathetic, disgusting, absolutely destructive and leads to nothing positive.
So while you might argue for DefundThePolice, you should actually ask for even more money, to much better train the police, give them much better equipment and in parallel start the work with social workers.
But areas with very significant issues in drugs require a lot of expensive work to get the drugs out of the people, their lives, kids in families of drug addicts have a tremendously fight in front of them to get out of that hole.
Violent gangs especially in the big cities roam there forever, and they persist in prison and everywhere. If there is a culture of crime and gangs, thats not a culture anybody should ever appreciate, it leads only to misery and death.
Structural problems exist in many shades. Racism especially is a minuscule problem in that greater scheme, as its more of a symptom that gets really ugly if more dire issues come together.
Drugged addicted gangs will produce such a massive bad image of a group of people, and if that group has a vast majority of a skin color or ethnic background, Racism against that group will spring into peoples lives, not because they are naturally racist, but they are driven into it (and getting them out and abandon it is sadly often only done by an entire generation that starts with a clean slate again).
If people have no proper structure, there is nothing that holds them above water and once they sink in enough, people start to struggle for air, and do so violently, which just drags more people into the whirlpool of violence ; that has to stop as soon as possible, and sadly it is dragging on for way too long already and current events just make everything worse in that regard.
----
The police officers are not your enemy.
But police officers are also not super heroes, they cant do everything, and they absolutely need proper funding, not budget cuts that lead to less training, worse equipment and a media that slurs and blames them for everything that the local politics in these big cities so continuously failed to do.
Mob justice is the last a society should ever ask for, we had enough of that in the past, and humanity should have learned enough that this does not make anything better and the problems just persist and fester.
----
#BLM as it is now does absolute NOTHING positive at all for anybody.
People either follow it like a cult mindlessly or they cower in FEAR of the mob.
Its in stark contrast to any kind of harmony between the people.
People can have very different world views, as long as they threat each other with respect and have harmony in mind, problems can be solved in a non-violent way.
If conflict erupts and violence is needed, it has to be swift, proper and most importantly, justified by law and order, not anarchy, spite, hate and vengeance.
----
#BlueLivesMatter will always ensure that police officers are not the sacrificial goat for a out of control media that is horny for the next violent riot, just to get a headline.
Police officers are human beings, with all the flaws of any human being.
And they deserve, like anybody else, justice by law and order.
As long as #BLM is actively asking for pro violence against police officers, and act like its totally fine to create chaos and instigate violent mobs, any movement that stands in opposition of #BLM is more than welcome to balance the insanity.
People that believe in the actual positive messages of #BLM should absolutely distance themselves from that group and start to act in their local community to start a change ; Hollywood stars and other fancy people will not help any of these interests, they only seek attention and self-glorification, they have nobody else interest in mind then their own.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I will re-engage you once I know the source of your information / knowledge. Until then...
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would claim to be for excessive violence. Police are no exception. Excessive police violence is never to be condoned - however policing is itself a job that comes into contact with violence frequently, and sometimes needs to resort to violence. It is important to separate the activism against the excessive and unnecessary violence.
Likewise, while policing in general has had racist results, it's important to separate that the police institution is not a racist institution - there is no racist agenda that they are fighting for. Policing is intended to be the institution that upholds the laws and protects the people - That this is not happening equally is the problem. The execution, not the vision or agenda. Not only that, but not every police officer is racist. Not every police officer ends encounters with minorities with gun shots. To say that these officers have no value of life? To compare them to Nazis? That is beyond harsh.
Your example of Nazism is also interesting. Even at its height, only about 10% of Germans were actually Nazis. Many more than that were German soldiers. Not every soldier actively believed in the Nazi ideal - this was a movement that grew over time, meticulously, and stamped out any dissent or opposition. To say that each of these people lose all claims of humanity is extreme. Many debates are had over the culpability of individual people in the movement, or even in mobs in general.
As I said earlier, policing is a dangerous job. Police Officers should expect to encounter violence, danger, and hardship in the line of duty. However, we can still recognize that they are making that choice. That remains a noble choice, of itself. Not only that, but #BlueLivesMatters is a step beyond that. It isn't just about police officers being killed for doing their job - it's a movement about bringing attention to officers who were gunned down - targeted by assassins and terrorists, outside of the normal line of duty.
Now, #Blue lives activists have taken the movement beyond that scope, pitting it as #BLM vs #BlueLM - that is despicable. But several groups have taken #BLM chants to violence as well, or even in seeking confrontation and violence in counter #BlueLM protests. These are extremists. If we say, rightfully, that they should not be held against #BLM - then those coopting #BlueLM should not be held against that movement either. - That is the position we have arrived at, and why Context matters. If #BLM were used in a harassing manner, it would not be allowed here. Using #BlueLivesMatter in a harassing manner won't be allowed either. But as a supportive statement, we have decided that they are valid.
While some cities and areas are inherently more dangerous than others, I think most can agree here. The dangers of an active warzone far outweigh the dangers of policing even the harshest areas. Dangers do exist, and part of the problem right now is that Soldiers are actually showing more restraint in a more dangerous situation than a large number of police officers.
This is well said.
These are good and important questions. Many human rights grievances need attention brought to them, many in different ways. Women's rights, LGBT rights, all have movements behind them advocating the changes we need. Sometimes they enter the spotlight, sometimes they get swept away a month later. Media attention and documentaries help bring these issues back into the light, but even those are fraught with controversy - especially when it is counter to current prevalent consensus. Veteran rights and issues have been brought up time and again, but the issues still persist. We can only try to keep bringing attention to the issues, and hope we find ways to improve them.
In terms of Police lives, it is only natural that as the Police come under scrutiny that they would wish to remind people of their side of the story, their sacrifices, and their problems. Since the spotlight is focused on them, they have gotten more attention of late.
Policing does need to change, and improve, towards #BLM violations. But while we are reexamining how we Police, why can we not fix other issues as well? Such as their mental health care, public image, or that they can be made targets? That there are other issues do not necessarily invalidate theirs. It's important to target the important changes first, but if we can fix more than one thing at the same time, I would be for it. My hope is that the Defund campaign will have an impact on how Police respond, and thereby lower the rate at which they are targeted.
This video is disturbing. I still cannot wrap my head around it. The individual here clearly has problems that need to be addressed.
Qualified Immunity is one of the things that needs to change. The simple truth is that the idea behind it, and how it is implemented do not match up.
This is one video that helped me learn a high level overview of the issue on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl6yXjdMlHI&ab_channel=LegalEagle
===
The people who have been incorrectly at the receiving end of this would beg to differ - and they are standing up to bring attention to it through their protests, and highlighting repeated instances proving that this is not miniscule. That this is NOT individual situations, but a history of repeated abuse.
The issue that is being campaigned is that this is consistent and repeated, and that the perpetrators are NOT being served justice in a proper manner. The system is currently not working as intended.
Current media dramatization and sensationalism is certainly a problem. Police violence is still a problem as well.
Why should the victims be the ones expected to forgive? Why should they forgive, when no impactful change has occured to stop them from being the victims? When no change has occurred, despite repeated examples and attention brought to this same issue, not for 5 years, not 10 years, not even 20 years, but well over 40 years with no meaningful change?
I think you have a misconception as to what #DefundThePolice entails.
The idea behind #Defund is that police are not the right service to call as first responders in many situations. Police Officers currently have more responsibilities than they should, and that is impacting their performance and their responses. It is placing an undue burden in the amount of different trainings they are expected to have.
Instead, #Defund suggests that other first response alternatives are more viable. Just as a Police Officer is not the primary response unit to a Fire, but rather we have firefighters for that, for a health check, or a mental health response, sending an armed police officer isn't necessary. A social worker or some form of medical personnel is more qualified to giving the care needed and addressing the needs of the situation.
If we move these duties into these new response units, then this removes a burden from the Police. A burden that they no longer need to commit training, personnel, gear, and monetary resources towards. This allocation needs to move out of the Police, where it does not belong, and into the initiatives where it will help.
#Defund is not about pretending that the same social health aspects can be done on a lower budget, but about allocating that budget into the services and initiatives that are best equipped to handle it.
Even Chicago's big push to disband the police force was taken entirely out of context. Many articles pushed forward the headlines of "What will Chicago do without a police department?!? It will be chaos!" They completely ignored that the context was to disband the police department, yes, that had been plagued with decades of documented corruption and incompetence, and instead allocate the funds into other social initiatives to replace those same areas of service, including looking into how to rebuild a department to handle routine policework, investigations, and crime prevention. It was all there already.
All the articles that claimed "Don't defund the police, rethink policing in Chicago and beyond" are missing the fact that it was exactly what the Defund movement was already all about! Rethinking how policing works. What Police are currently responsible for, and whether they should be.
And this is exactly what #Defund is trying to address.
The need is to get the money and funding to the right places, and train the right people, instead of putting more stress onto an already overburdened police force.
The fact that the racism continues today and is not fixed shows that it's not a miniscule problem, and that it hasn't gone away on its own. That means we need to examine if proactive steps will prove better or more effective - because what we have been doing, is not working.
BLM is bringing forth attention to an issue that has plagued our country for too long. Is it wrong for people to demand change when something is wrong?
Sure, sometimes people see a perceived wrong, and they stand up and demand change - the attention makes people examine the problem, and it's seen that the wrong is inconsequential or simply perceived, and that there is no problem... But that's not what happened here.
Multiple studies back up the claims. Multiple studies show that there is an issue. That's why so many people have gotten on board.
Are there group causes that go overboard? Yes. Are there group causes that go too far, based on inaccurate evidence? Yes. That's why it's important to look into who is supporting the cause, why it's being supported, and what the research is behind it.
In this case, when one side is being upheld by most research institutions, and the other is being upheld by self-avowed racists...
This is important. To have a counterbalancing point to ensure that things do not go too far in scapegoating.
Gonna need a source.
That's what people are doing. Campaigning their senators, governors, and local governments to change how we police, and examine the biases in our society and enact change upon it. That's literally what #BLM is about.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
It would be important to make that distinction if we assume that is a distinction among natural kinds: policing that involves excessive and unnecessary violence, and policing which does not. It is actually quite substantive a claim to state that the latter exists or is possible; it is also substantive to claim otherwise. Which is to say, neither is a neutral or default position. While it is certainly a commonly held view that policing is a necessary institution (and by virtue of that, any violence it may involve is not always unnecessary), alternative views have been proposed. The basis of the alternative view is the principle that an institution which creates a societal caste of law enforcers whose enforcement practice is founded on their caste license to firearm usage, is an inherently violent institution because it is nonvoluntary and entrenches hierarchical relations. What is proposed instead is a society in which authority is determined by voluntary relations that democratize in all spheres of life. Insofar as this alternative view provides a different model of society which is possible (it's at least logically possible, whereas practically, technologically, or politically possible are much harder judgments), police violence is never necessary and so police aren't necessary either.
I'm pointing this out because this is the sort of argument being made by people in the anti-fascist movement, and you seem to be unfamiliar with it. The advocacy of centrist, bourgeois liberals for reform of these institutions needs to be understood for what it is: counterrevolutionary. And this position is not holding an unbiased middle line, it works against the changes the anti-fascist movement is working towards by asserting the problems are not fundamental to the institutions. And because such moderate views tend to be more palatable to the mainstream audience, they've attained widespread ideological success, even though as you admit below, much hasn't changed on account of those policies over the course of not-so-recent history. Belief in institutional reform is not the same as denying that the problems exist at all. There are valid reasons for thinking that institutional reform is possible, just as there are valid reasons for thinking it is not (obviously I'm inclined toward the latter, full disclosure, and I would point out validity alone isn't equivalence of justification). My point is that this is hugely contentious issue; liberals and the left both favor solving the problem but they're really not on the same side when it comes to the method--and method is critical.
The effect of this conflict probably has contributed to the inefficacy of the half-measures which have been legislated in the past even as they were eroded and actually reversed by the triangulation strategies of the center in its competition with the right. But the division is something that is not easily mended because the point of the division is fundamental. And that's important because it means that, in practice, centrism opposes the left more than the right. That same bias is being reflected here in this forum.
All that is required for an institution to be racist is that it participates in and/or perpetuates systemic racism. The institution of police does do this as you admit, so it is a racist institution. It is not necessary for that institution to have a conscious agenda of participating or perpetuating systemic racism. It is not necessary for the individuals who make up the institution in whole or in part to hold racial prejudices. These aren't the claims being made by people who say that the institution of the police is racist. The claim that you want to deny here is that the institution is necessarily racist, and the movement to defund the police is pretty skeptical about that denial to say the least.
Comparison of police officers to Nazis can be taken in two different ways: a police officer is the moral equivalent of a Nazi, or a police officer's actions have an underlying similarity in principle to the actions of a Nazi. The former is a comparison of degree, the latter is a comparison of category. In some cases, it can be both.
It's important to be cautious any time we dehumanize anyone. I re-read over FlossedBeaver's post and I didn't get the sense that his argument was the Nazi loses his claim to humanity, though if anyone would surely a Nazi is a candidate. He said that a Nazi whose act is characterized by what we would normally consider the virtue of courage should not be celebrated for this seeming courage because this virtue is not in harmony with other virtues (Plato's Laches, give me life! ). And this is quite germane to the consideration of whether #bluelivesmatter is a worthy cause to promote, in light of the question of whether the institution of police has any capacity of being realized in full virtue or is compatible with a society of liberal values.
Policing is dangerous, although, many professions are more dangerous than that of the police who aren't being brought up because they are not an explicit foil to the political issue of black lives matter.
Again, can a choice be truly noble of itself as though isolated from the context that choice takes place in? The amount of analysis that question would take to even understand the problem it poses isn't suited to this format.
This appears to be a moral equivalence argument. Use of violence in any context is, by definition, extreme. Yet what most people (except absolute pacifists) agree on is that violence is sometimes necessary. You, for example, say police violence is sometimes necessary. Meaning, the context determines whether it's appropriate. If the context is an institution which systemically engages in violence under the auspices of state power, and a violent response is considered an undesirable but historically informed strategy of combating this institution, that position shares a principle with yours--neither is pacifist. But yours accepts the basic legitimacy of state violence and chooses moderate rather than extreme action as a response to this state violence. And there is a third position, the promotion of state violence, which you are characterizing as equivalent morally to the violent opposition. I don't think that you are morally equivalent to the state-violence-promoting group here but I do find it dubious that in this situation being moderate is the most rational and appropriate response, and I definitely object to the insinuation that the two groups you are comparing are at all similar.
The context of bluelivesmatter is that blacklivesmatter arose specifically to address the issue of police violence and the former was, in complete and utter cynicism, thrown out ad hoc to derail the discussion so that the focus was instead on... the perpetrators of the violence and their issues. I find this perverse. A specific individual's intent in invoking bluelivesmatter may simply be to offer support, but this usage is technically acontextual. Judging intent, especially over the internet, is basically impossible because intent is all about the inner aspect of the person using the expression and not about how its meaning is interpreted in context. I would welcome the discussion about this usage with someone who did have that sort of intent, because I welcome all discussion, but it's important to take into consideration the impact in which the proliferation of "bluelivesmatter" signatures would have on marginalized groups within the community. It would make the community less welcoming to them. Some people might be similarly impacted by "blacklivesmatter" and feel unwelcomed, but is this a segment of the community which is worthy of being specifically catered to? "Blacklivesmatter" does not have to be unwelcoming to anyone except those who do not want to accept this premise, and that's racists as a group. I think there's legitimate cause to say that the best thing for them is to sit with that discomfort, which is not something that applies to BIPOC in the reverse situation.
I do agree that harassment is always inappropriate. I think we have established that as a common ground.
I'm not sure a permissive attitude toward police PR efforts is exactly what this conflict calls for. I would draw a comparison to men's rights activism, which is reactionary to feminism. It assumes, first of all, that men's issues require distinct treatment not provided by feminism. This is somewhat understandable considering that the word is "feminism," the emphasis is on women. MRA is the "alllivesmatter" of gender issues, basically. But feminism actually does analyze the issues that men face under a patriarchal society, it just makes the simple point that its emphasis is based on the fact that the issues men face are overall not as impactful as patriarchal society is on women. So men don't really need a separate treatment on gender issues independent of feminist analysis; they're already covered. And, on top of that, for men to receive this separate treatment would mean that dialogue on gender issues is taking place in which women aren't prioritized, which is backwards because of the earlier point that women are impacted more heavily by the effects of systemic gender inequality. Finally, there's the way that this discourse has developed and takes place in practice, in order to derail feminist discourse. We can indeed solve both women's issues and men's issues at the same time. But the aversion that some men have to the solution because it associates them with femininity is a salient instantiation of the problem to begin with.
I am sure it is true that policing has negative effects on the police. However, they choose to become police. BLM has a solution to these negative effects which does not require the addition of separate treatment for police (the solution is defunding and abolition). There's also class analysis and mental health awareness available which would address different aspects of those issues in a way that's not offensive and would even support solidarity and social integration. In other words, there's a bevy of constructive approaches to the issues of the police that don't involve them centering attention on themselves as police.
You find yourself overcommitted to the board while playing your aggro deck, meanwhile your opponent's side of the board is empty. "Equality before the law," your opponent says, casting Wrath of God; "There is literally no oppression at all."
I think we are working on different definitions here.
Perhaps I walked away with a different understanding of the example.
You've lost me here, and are making things more convoluted than necessary.
What I am saying is that each group needs to be judged on their own position and merits, and not on the actions of another group that uses their slogan. If we uphold this ideal for #BlackLivesMatters, by saying that the violence and riots are a separate entity from the entity of the movement, and do not reflect the goals and general acceptance of the #BLM movement (which has been largely, but not entirely, peaceful protests) then we should uphold the same standards for others, and not villainize them based on the actions of other groups.
I have never stated that #BLM or any of the peaceful protests, or even civil disobedience, or even straight up riots, were unnecessary. The movement has stepped up its attempts to gain attention for a decade now, and if simple acts of attention aren't enough, clearly larger acts are needed until the attention is given is deserved. Simply because something is necessary however does not mean that it is exempt from repercussion either.
There are also various contexts of violence that seem to be conflated here. (1) Excessive violence and use of force by the Police that has led to the wrongful deaths of individuals with no repercussions; (2) Regular violence and use of Police force in proper procedure when other deescalation methods have failed - No matter what your beliefs or ideals, there will always be some need to apprehend a non-compliant subject; (3) the violence of the protests; (4) the violence of the riots; (5) the violence by government authorities against the protesters (peaceful, non-peaceful, and riots); and (6) the violence of confrontations between protesters and counter protesters. At no point did I ever claim that these different situations and contexts of violence are equivalent in scope, context, or anything else.
=====
The general current accepted context does not seem to support this. If you have additional context to provide, I would be happy to pass it up and add it to the growing research that I have put together on this.
That first is why initially we did not accept #BlueLives. However, after doing some research, what we found is that the blue lives movement is for solidarity of assassinated officers, and was not explicitly started as a counter-movement to BLM. This is reflected in common usage, as companies have explicitly allowed #BlueLives, and/or explicitly rolled back previous disapproval of it. This is in stark contrast to ALM, which is explicitly a counter-movement, and is likewise seen in common usage where companies have been explicitly disapproving of it, with such disapprovals only consistently rising. Likewise with #WLM, which barely even deserves a mention.
An interesting analogy, and actually the exact one I had in mind and that I was alluding to when writing my post, as I had just seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY&ab_channel=TEDxTalks
That is a TED talk by a previously prominent Women's Rights Activist who created two feminist documentaries, and then went to research the MRA for a third documentary, examined her own biases, found that they actually had compelling points not covered by feminism, made a documentary about it, and then was ostracized for supporting that unpopular view.
In short, according to her, after doing the research for her documentary she discovered that No, the Mens Rights Activists are NOT the "alllivesmatters" of gender issues. They did have a separate point, and were not necessarily in contention with the feminist movements, and that men are not "already covered."
---
For reference, one of the other movements that I had in mind was something I had recently read regarding former Judge Aaron Persky, the judge who ruled on the Brock Turner rape case.
https://www.quora.com/In-light-of-the-evidence-was-justice-served-by-recalling-Judge-Persky-for-the-sentence-he-gave-Brock-Turner/answer/Jeremy-Arnold-4
A likewise interesting read, which showcases the dangers of being caught up in a popular opinion movement without doing your own proper research. Some quick googling shows that the general premise of this research holds merit, and that the Judge was following pre-set recommendations and standards, and that the general legal institution sided with him in the recall.
---
Likewise, it seems that #BlueLivesMatters has a separate point to make, which is not necessarily related to #BLM. I have not personally looked into whether or that point is valid, or to what degree, but it seems the general public is at least willing to currently give it due consideration.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
In the interim, I just wanted to ask: what are your sources regarding Blue Lives Matter? A cursory glance at Wikipedia - while not the most academic of repositories, certainly the most immediately available - yields the following in just the first paragraph.
"Blue Lives Matter is a human rights countermovement in the United States advocating that those who are prosecuted and convicted of killing law enforcement officers should be sentenced under hate crime statutes.[1] It was started in response to Black Lives Matter after the homicides of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in Brooklyn, New York on December 20, 2014.[2]"
Emphasis mine. If Black Lives Matter started in 2013, how can Blue Lives Matter be a separate precursor? I'll see if I can't dig for other sources to verify, but I have no reason to doubt this information on the face of it.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
I'm deriving this argument from a reading of Bakunin and Marx, there's quite a lot of other literature I'm not well versed in. I'll try to see if I can find any articles applying this analysis to the current issue
Alright, I think that's probably true. But the definition I'm using seems to be the same definition that FlossedBeaver is using.
Well, I do my best to edit my thoughts so that they're as clear as possible but it can be very difficult when I'm trying to discuss something that's counterintuitive.
Here's a different presentation:
1. You've condemned violent actions for the sake of BLM (hereafter termed "antifascist violence")
2. The condemnation in (1) was placed side by side with the condemnation of police violence (the promotion thereof hereafter termed "fascist violence") but
3. Earlier you stated police violence is sometimes necessary
4. Therefore, you're not a pacifist.
5. The non-pacifist distinction between anti-fascist violence, fascist violence, and your position is when violence is considered necessary
6. The conditions of fascist violence are institutionally in place and produce the most violence of the three standards in question
7. Anti-fascist violence considers itself to be necessary to oppose fascist violence yet is not violent in the absence of fascism
7a. Anti-fascist violence is only violent in practice against fascism, not violent in principle and in practice as with liberalism and fascism
8. You consider anti-fascist violence unnecessary, in direct comparison to the unnecessary nature of fascist violence
9. The toleration of some state violence naturally and predictably leads to tolerating increasing violence. It attempts to negate this violence from the equation by calling it necessary but neglects that its always violent in principle.
10. If you tolerate some degree of state violence per (3) and oppose anti-fascist violence per (8), then you cannot in principle violently oppose fascism
11. Not violently opposing fascism results in more fascist violence
12. Your position creates more net violence despite appearing to favor peace, which is morally untenable
I understand that this was the point you were making, but the examples you choose for your comparison were ill-considered since you did not qualify what you were saying with a statement about how they're not equivalent.
Ok, so you are denying my premise 8 from above.
That does change my interpretation a little bit. But I'm not quite sure what you mean here by repercussion. One possible repercussion of this activism is that society changes in some way along the lines that the activism took as a goal. If this doesn't happen, then that activism was not effective, and this is also a repercussion. I think you mean something like legal, criminal justice type repercussions, which is of course an aspect of the struggle. Or in the context of this forum, the enforcement of rules (you mentioned harassment specifically).
We must all accept the consequences of our actions. But the necessity of our actions ought to be a factor where there's a choice about those consequences. If this isn't weighed properly it implies a denial of the necessity, which would bring premise 8 back into the picture.
Not conflated, considered violence in principle.
You seem to misunderstand what I'm saying here. Of all the possible institutional models in which the need to apprehend a non-compliant subject is to be addressed, how does the institution of the police fare? The institution of the police can't be separated out from the capitalist state as a whole... it's integral. And there's a number of factors here because of that: 1. poverty is positively correlated with criminality, capitalism suppresses wages and perpetuates cycles of poverty as the necessary condition of increasing profits 2. in order to increase profits capitalist states are pressured toward privatization 3. privatized prison-industrial complexes profit from increased incarceration 4. police are thereby encouraged to incarcerate as many people as possible 5. poor people are easier to incarcerate (black people are disproportionately poor) 6. reforms leave intact the existence of the capitalist class who organize to undermine these reforms ... etc.
So, for one, I'm suggesting there's an alternate model where the number of situations in which a non-compliant subject needs to be apprehended is diminished. And secondly, when the method of apprehension involves the community in a directly democratic process instead of designated gun-bearers of an official state, that method is compatible with rehabilitative and restorative justice.
Yet the comparison implies it. You deem both to be unacceptable, you didn't specify anything beyond this.
=====
Seems to me the person advocating for bluelivesmatter in this thread is an example of the case I was talking about.
Isn't it implicitly counter to it, though? After all, it uses the same framing. I find this interpretation a little obtuse.
Anything to be published. Lots of people profess to be "feminist" but it's actually a pretty intellectually difficult subject and not everyone who takes on this title is very representative or consistent with feminism. J.K. Rowling comes to mind, being a TERF. This is a misnomer, by the way; there's nothing radical or feminist about TERFs... they are reactionary and non-feminist. Or, for another example, the typical populist version of feminism which argued that it was automatically sexist to oppose Hilary Clinton's candidacy for presidency in 2016 despite the fact that her policy platform and record wasn't particularly favorable to women's liberation. I find this video to be impossibly shallow to be considered seriously as a counterexample, almost as if she was trying to be a "stereotypical" feminist in her initial spin of her interviews. Just one example.... speaking personally as a man who was a victim of domestic violence, I would point out the discrepancy in institutional support for victims of domestic violence is something that absolutely can be addressed in feminist theory, the idea that some women who call themselves feminists would take a dismissive attitude toward the issue might just be an indicator of a need to reflect more deeply on the commitments their ideology entails.
There are limits to feminist theory as a form of analysis. But I don't see this video as demonstrating its limits, as much as of the limits of the speaker's own thinking. Of course, her exposure to a different point of view was critical for being able to acknowledge her biases and maybe that wasn't possible in her normal feminist circle. Maybe, in practice, feminist discourse has the possibility of inculcating these biases if it forms overly insular communities. But that doesn't prove that MRA is itself necessary, it just had the accidental effect in her case of getting her out of her echo chamber. But that's also kind of why I've hammered on about how we need freer discourse everywhere it occurs. In other words, I don't want the MRAs to shut up, but I do want to explain to them why listening a little can be beneficial.
Change you never be DEMANDED , especially not by violence, oppression, insults and property destruction.
Change has to be made by a concentrated effort to make it BETTER, not run the entire society in the ground in the process to aim for some fantasy, that will only shift the supposed problem to somebody else.
----
There is to say, people are way more inclined to act like they are oppressed, as it provides them benefits.
As long as crying victim (no matter if its real or not) results in attention and is rewarded, thats exactly what you get.
And if somebody cries victim while smashing windows in, looting stores and putting fire to buildings, i cannot take any of it serious, its completely impossible to have any meaningful "message" if its all about destruction and making absolutely everything worse for anybody.
----
Actual problematic racism is already gone.
Law even goes as far as to give black people affirmative action, which is a form of racism in itself.
So it can very well be said that the pendelumn already swings in the other direction, making the supposed former racists into the actual people that face racism themselves.
The very idea that black "cant be racist" is mind boggling naive.
Theres countless hate crimes against white people (and anybody claimed to be white) of absolutely disgusting people that in their delusion of racism believe they are entitled and justified to commit these violent acts.
Person assaulted with a brick from behind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5qGuUJrS_0
These sick people are laughing and are absolutely sure they are justified to do that.
Its what BLM pushes in itself, it produces this sentiment in people, that they can do all these evil things, because they are "justified" to do so (which they are absolutely not).
BLM actively aims to make violence "ok" , like its not a problem at all, while simultaneously claiming the other kind of violence is bad. Both violence is bad, so stop it instead of instigating more of it!
Completly wrong, either get your message PEACEFULLY across, or you just become a part of the problem on your own.
And at this stage, BLM is dividing so much, that you end up with people on both sides that justify violence, and we absolutely never ever want to have that.
People that are incapable to talk and argue about their issues will just freak out about anything, especially if it "works" for them.
(Even little kids have to learn that crying does not help them, they will just learn to cry all the time and do nothing on their own)
Who wants to live in a area where every black person looks at you like you are the devil, and they hate you, for no reason at all, because they are told to.
Thats what happens in every ideology that turns evil.
People are indoctrinated with hate and they justify absolute evil like they are fighting for the "good" itself.
Violence can never be accepted as a means to push any message.
Violence is the absolute proof that one side lost the argument and wants to push their superiority over another person.
----
If people are told from pre-school onwards they are victims and oppressed, they will believe it.
If people are told police will kill them, they will believe it.
If all they see in the news is the absolute worst escalated conflicts of the police, they will believe that is "normal".
If a person is in irrational fear when they face police, they will panic and act out aggressive and violently.
Even more so if under drugs.
These people are already dangerous, and the indoctrination of irrational fear makes it many stages worse.
People dont even want proper justice by law and order.
They replace that with mob justice and what somebody said is like the absolute truth, unquestioned, what they say it is.
There is no rational in that, other than the indoctrinated fear that turns into an even more dangerous manifested claim for blood vengeance, like they are "totally" justified to hunt people down on their own, without any fair trial in court.
People are not guilty till a court decides they are guilty.
And if people cannot accept that, everyone is guilty by default, and thats a terrifying evil premise as it undermines any basic principle of a fair trial and a proper fair justice system.
----
BLM for some reason believes in righting the supposed wrongs with more wrong doing from somebody else, completely disconnected from the actual point.
----
To identify if an ideology is either good or evil in nature can be easily broken down to:
- Is the ideology advocating for violence against anybody ?
Yes (war) - evil
No (peace) - good
- Is the ideology putting anybody or any group above another ?
Yes (supremacy) - evil
No (equality) - good
- Is the ideology providing all its people the same fundamental freedoms ?
Yes (liberal respect) - good
No (authoritarian fascism) - evil
----
In a mob people stop thinking on their own.
They act like savage animals and drive each other in a frenzy that is inherently destructive and terrible for everyone.
As a town, a state or a nation (or even the entire world) , people have to work together and contribute to make the entirety better for everyone.
Waging war against your own people is only hurting yourself and everyone around you.
Separating people by skin color is inherently racist.
To claim a group of skin color requires inherently different treatment is racist.
- Violence is always in itself physical oppression.
- Violence should never be glorified.
- Violence will always produce fear, hate and mistrust.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
This is patently false on its face. While you are correct that there may not be widespread personal racism, it is in fact institutionally racist - and there are salient claims that it has been since its inception. This, it seems, hinges on our individual definitions of what racism is or is not; I'll address this below.
H3RAC71TU5 was already kind enough to point out that racism need not be intentional, or even perceived, for it to exist and do harm. Perhaps the greatest difficulty of this entire topic is that personal bias is so difficult to perceive, and when pointed out by others oftentimes elicits a defensive, knee-jerk response (fight or flight). Many people advocating for #AllLivesMatter do not perceive themselves as being racist, but I think we can both agree that it is. It has been a constant uphill battle to convince my own mother, now on the precipice of 70, that saying "all lives matter" is inherently racist, no matter how many black friends you have or disinclined you are to use the n-word. I hope the analogy is clear.
There is a substantive argument to be made that upholding traditionally white cultural norms and social mores (both de facto and de jure) is the purview of our modern police force, and that we can trace the origins of such a "vision or agenda" well before the Reconstruction period. The term "racist" is generally unpalatable for those accused of being such, but the term "white supremacist" is even less so, given that it has negative connotations extending beyond mere personal bias. Outside of polite discourse I would refrain from using the latter, but it seems apt here, given the generally educational bent of this conversation. The police force is, institutionally speaking, a white supremacist organization; in practice as well as principle, it exists to promote the well-being of a white majority at the expense of others in a traditionally zero-sum game. If we think about this outside the scope of just violence for a moment, the facts speak for themselves: black communities are over-policed relative to white communities, and black people are targeted and incarcerated in disproportionately higher numbers than are white people. Again, that this is fact should be beyond dispute. The ultimate question that arises, then, is why? What are the underlying factors in our society that lead to this outcome? Liberals propose that there is a complex system of overlapping institutions, events, and social systems which have subordinated black people in society, going all the way back before the founding of the United States, and that the police force - as an extension of the state - is one such institution. Conservatives have not offered any better explanation than a correlational culture of criminality, one that ignores all of the historical circumstances that lead to such crime in the first place. While they generally avoid accusations by way of skin color (so as to adhere to their own limited definition of racism), blaming black culture is ultimately no less racist. I'm loath to compare human beings to animals, but if you'll allow me one more analogy: if you set fire to a cage of rats, and the rats kill each other in a frenzy to get away from the fire, do you blame the person who set that fire, or do you say "Look! It's in their nature for rats to be violent to each other!"?
I would hope that, given the context of everything I've brought to the table up to this point, nobody would walk away with the impression that I don't value life, even the life of a peace officer.
Let's not be disingenuous about my rhetoric. As a credentialed historian, and someone who dabbles in historical war games, of course I'm well aware that the German Wehrmacht was not an inherently political organization, just as you are no doubt aware that the Waffen-SS was. I prefer not to wax pedantic over facts that are not ultimately in service to my greater point, but you've forced my hand here. If it helps, though, consider this more specific example instead: a tower guard at a German concentration camp is not worthy of being venerated for dying in service to his country, regardless of the assumed principles of that country. However much sympathy you would afford such a person is ultimately a personal choice, but that is not the same as saying he "loses all claims of humanity."
According to my research, about ~80 peace officers were killed in the line of duty last year, and only about half of those were a result of deliberate criminal acts. Compare that to the number of black people who suffered injustice (not just death) disproportionately in the same span of time and I think you'll see a huge comparative gap between the two social movements. Not only that, I think it bears mentioning that the two officers whose deaths resulted in the promulgation of #BlueLivesMatter were deliberately targeted as a consequence of what happened to Eric Garner and Michael Brown (and if you haven't already watched 8:46, I suggest you do so now). Further, I take issue with the term "assassinated" in this context, as it's deliberately loaded to generate undue sympathy for officers who are killed in the line of duty but not necessarily targeted for their profession; I suspect that number is somewhat lower, if not considerably. Can we use a less inflammatory word?
Lastly, from everything I've seen and read - and that includes the BlueLives core organization - the express intent of #BlueLivesMatter is not to generate awareness or sympathy but to promote legislation that casts violent acts which result in the death of peace officers as hate crimes. The so-called awareness is just a means to that end, and an especially emotive one at that, given how few officers would actually be subject to such a rule. This is both an implied moral and legislative false equivalence, because, like racism itself, it perpetuates a disparity in power between those in a position of authority and those who are subordinated to them. Suffice it to say, the police do not need more legal protection than they currently already enjoy. My takeaway, given these facts, is thus: #BlueLivesMatter is most definitely a countermovement, a response to the #BLM movement on a broader, social level, and also a response to my specific efforts at raising awareness for #BLM here at MTGS. I feel that those efforts are somewhat diminished by your allowance of #BlueLivesMatter by other posters, which may or may not be a calculated consequence of their intent, and that it will silently drive away viewership by others who genuinely need a safe space.
If you actually visit bluelivesmatter.blue, by the way, you'll be treated to a never-ending stream of pro-police propaganda, the intent of which is clearly aimed at undermining support for popular protests (peaceful or otherwise).
===
Contemporary definitions of racism deserve their own separate space, so I'll follow up in another post, unless somebody beats me to it.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
BLM and Blue are intrinsically linked, as the two police officers killed were assassinated in reaction to assaults against BLM. This makes disentangling the two very difficult.
Wikipedia was a starting point for me as well, but the sources I listed in my earlier description of #BlueLives were brought in during further depth of research.
I would like to emphasize the second part of your quote from wikipedia as well: "It was started in response to Black Lives Matter after the homicides of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in Brooklyn, New York on December 20, 2014."
The current Blue Lives homepage has a concise mission statement: https://bluelivesmatternyc.org/pages/frontpage
This article has this quote towards the beginings of Blue: https://www.the-sun.com/news/992088/blue-lives-matter-racist-flag-blm-protests/
This article has this to say about several of the police support affiliations (emphasis mine): https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/08/the-short-fraught-history-of-the-thin-blue-line-american-flag
https://gothamist.com/news/inside-seething-white-heart-blue-lives-matter-movement
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/11/30/why-blue-lives-matter/
===
In going back to find these links, however, I have found the following article, which I plan to read more in depth, as well as forward to the ownership:
https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/03-Smith.pdf
I also found an archive of the original mission statement, which is considerably different than today.
https://archive.bluelivesmatter.blue/organization/
I will forward this to ownership as well.
===
You mean, like change against an oppressive Monarchy which treated some of its ctizens as inferior and denying them their rights? Perhaps running that society into the ground, and rebuilding a new one, not once, but twice?
Our history disagrees with what you consider to be occasionally necessary or not necessary.
So how is someone who is oppressed supposed to get attention then? Simply ask pretty please to the very people oppressing them?
So, someone crying victim while emptying an entire shipment of tea into a harbor would not be a meaningful message, historically?
The data and studies disagree with this assessment, still to this day.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-systemic-racism-in-charts-graphs-data-2020-6#the-wage-gap-between-races-also-interacts-with-the-gender-wage-gap-between-men-and-women-10
That is boggling, and naive, yes. Anyone can be racist.
BLM is not about making violence ok. It's about demanding change, for a continued injustice, which repeatedly continues to be ignored from a legal perspective, despite research and studies showing it to still be a problem. Violence has come into play in a remote and small subset of gatherings, due to the fact that peaceful protest over an extended period has failed. Repeatedly.
While this would be ideal, what happens when the oppressors refuse to listen to your peaceful protest? Historically speaking, well... examples abound. In our own history no less, and not that long ago.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
This delusional believe is a core problem.
People blow their comparable little issues completely out of proportions and suddenly everything is a question of life and death, and in situations like that, everything goes, no matter how unthinkable evil it is.
We are neither living under a monarchy, nor is anybody keeping anybody hostage anywhere.
If somebody disagrees everyone can just leave, thats freedom in itself.
You dont even need money, just pack your belongings and go, a airline ticket is not free, but you can just keep walking if you truly want it.
Which is exactly what all the refugees are doing, leaving places they want to actually get away from.
Thats clearly NOT the case for the USA, as people in contrary come here instead and the vast majority of people that run away from actual bad countries think a lot more positive about America.
People that truly hate and despise this country dont do themselves a favor to stay here at all, nor do they anybody else a favor to drag them down with them and poison society ; nobody wins with people that just spread hate and terror, thats a net negative for everyone (and thats exactly why no country wants these people if they can choose who they let migrate, nobody in their right mind would want somebody in their house that actively plots the home owners demise).
Like any civilized person is expected to deal with problems.
First, fix them yourself in your personal circle.
(and thats already where lots of people fail, they just expect to be lifted and ascend to riches, without any work of themselves)
Write and get in contact with your major , governor or congress.
In a bunch of towns and cities there is even a very open ear from police officers to actively say what specifically bothers them and fix the problem right at hand.
If the town/city or even the state itself is not shaped to the wishes of your personal vision, theres plenty of places to move to.
The very first you do if your area is absolute trash, leave that place ; you cant get healthy with crime, drugs and misery all around you (and if you are part of that crime, drug, misery problem, leaving is actively good for anybody else in that environment too).
----
Theres nothing more pathetic than an incredible privileged individual that still cries all the time and demand support.
People that riot and steal, that then still demand money and help are just pathetic ... if thats acceptable, you just allow crime, and nobody in their right mind wants to live anywhere in which place crime is acceptable, absolute impossible to build anything up if there is no security, if your little shop you build up is trashed and smashed to pieces by people that just freak out at random, thats no place to get anywhere else than rock bottom ; and its even more insulting if these people then dare to blame you as the bad person that is oppressing them ... thats so fundamentally insane its beyond comprehension how anybody can get that low on a moral level of mutual respect for another human being.
----
Lets just assume a violent riot COULD be justified.
By that you open the door for basically everyone to go around and smash stores, burn down cars and attack people simply because they want to "protest".
Truly peaceful protest (and every legit protest fundamentally needs to be peaceful, or passively resisting, but never actively attacking anybody).
The moment people attack anybody, they lose any legitimacy in their argument and force themselves in a supremacy role, like their needs are more important than the needs of anybody else ... sorry, no, your needs are not more important at all, everyone has the rights to keep safe and nobody is allowed to hurt anybody else, destroy any property or disregard any social harmony simply because they dont feel like following the rules (rules that can be changed in an actual democratic process, which we and any other civilized country has, if you have an issue, you have to fight for it in the proper way, and while minorities should not be thrown under the bus, they also cannot force their needs into the majority, as that would completely undermine the democratic vote, if the minority can decide over the majority, people that feel that oppressed will flee, they always do and seek happiness elsewhere, as there is no point in stoking the fires everywhere, sometimes its way more intelligent to simply avoid conflict and not run towards anybody to punch them).
Sure, why vote at all ? Why have any dialog at all.
Lets just DEMAND what we want and punch everyone into submission that disagrees.
Thats for sure a great way to ensure social harmony ...
Oh cmon , nobody can truly believe that with a straight face and advocate violence ... are you guys serious ? ...
By that logic people that fundamentally disagree should do what ?
Fight in a death match for their demands ?
Hows such a stupid idea going to be implemented ?
How can anybody remotely believe that this is like "the solution" ?
What ?
If a family disagrees should be kids attack their parents ?
Should the parents punch their children into submission because they demand they behave ?
Holy ***** people, violence is evil, and everyone that resorts to violence should absolutely understand that resorting to this savage animalistic behaviors is fundamentally wrong.
Such a world cannot work, Survival of the Fittest and blatant disregard for human life and property is utterly inexcusable, its a total no-go.
But yea, the indoctrinated people actually believe they have "no other choice" , as they are told and instigated to this violence, and the actual evil are the people that advocate and excuse this violence.
Cant you see how this makes absolutely anything worse ?
----
Seriously anybody that ever had any business can just laugh about the "Wage-Gap".
If countless details are ignorantly or intentionally left out, of course you will have men that earn more.
If a family has 1 full time working men and a wife at home or working part time, of course the men is making more money ; its even reasonable to do so, as the guy has to make money not for himself, but his entire family.
Issues arise as women (and especially black women) do not have a husband or father at their side. A single mom household has just 1 income, and that is rarely a 20+ year experience income and as culture currently is, women are the once that raise the children in the vast majority of cases.
You can argue that you dont like this culture, but the supposed wage gap is a symptom of many factors that are very well ignored.
Almost too hilarious to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdnkbs4l_g
And claiming studies show is also a cheap excuse, as we should be well aware that studies especially to such topics are massively driven by political agenda:
https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-gender-pay-gap-explained-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/
But just basic logic denies that anybody that does equal work is paid less just "because".
I have employees and do you truly believe if i haggle with them for their wage or pay raise their gender has any meaning ?
(That said, women that are single moms tend to be more often at home, as children get sick, and more sick in general, pure statistics from my personal experience ; it quickly gets down to biological differences, men and women are simply not the same, and thats usually positive and not a problem)
From my personal experience an example:
- Men works 160 hours a month , 20h over time , 10 days sick a year.
- Women works 60 hours a month part time , 20h over time , 20 days sick (including sick days for children).
Its such a basic normal life example.
Theres no evil intention here, its just blatantly obvious that the men will make more money.
Even for higher paying jobs, the big money might come in after 20+ years of experience, without any breaks, constantly working at projects and pushing the company.
If women do that (and usually dont have children in the process) , they earn often way more than men do.
But if a 40 year old women decides she wants children that late, they might just quit the job that would pay extremely well and be a full time mom and work part time (and part time once again pays way less, if the company needs a full time project lead with that experience instead).
Pay gap for black people is even more nefarious. If you have a applicant with basically the same grades and one is asian the other black, the big problem here is affirmative action grounded. The black might be way worse than the asian in qualification.
Without affirmative action the grades would actually reflect their skill, but they get completely nullified and meaningless if somebody has to put much more work in their grades than somebody else, only because of affirmative action ; which is reason enough for me to absolutely speak against affirmative action, as i need the best person for the job and not play social justice advocate in my business.
Lots of stuff is well intended but actively becomes a burden and a problem in the REAL world, outside of just theory scholars that make up some fantasy that simply doesnt work in practice or produces problems they either didnt see or intentionally didnt want to see (which is a real issue, if a scholar is intentionally disregarding the facts in front of them, as they are not "allowed" to speak the truth, as somebody might feel oppressed by reality, happens way too often).
Gad Saad, the guy fights for years to keep science truly about facts, not social ideology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEWOI317XtY
If a scientist cant speak their mind as they are oppressed by people that claim to be offended, the essence of science withers and dies slowly.
----
People have conflicts and people for sure dont agree all the time.
Making EVERYTHING based in racism and every problem about racism doesnt do actual real racism any favor.
It got so far that racism itself as a word is redefined in a way that goes far beyond what the truly evil racism means.
Thats something basically everyone can agree on.
You would think ...
But some claim that not everyone can be racist.
Some people are magically not racist by default.
If somebody says "blacks cant be racist" its so insanely idiotic, that it borderlines becomes criminally naive to reality.
----
https://theintercept.com/2020/08/27/black-lives-matter-protesters-terrorism-felony-charges/
At the current time you simply have too much rioters and crazy people that flag themselves as BLM protesters that go way way too far and become actual terrorists.
Pushing any message with violence, insults and fear of mob justice is fundamentally wrong.
This kind of mob rule doesnt solve any problem, it leads to way more problems and people that are hurt by this will not look at BLM protests in sympathy, but disgust and increasingly counter-aggressive.
This kind of BLM activism produces the very issues it might try to think to stand against.
All the damage actually costs money:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/05/black-lives-matter-protesters-riot-in-manhattan-cause-100000-damage/
The idiotic idea that all the damage is covered by insurance is sinister and naively stupid.
The vast majority of small stores have no insurance, it doesnt cover anywhere close the damage they received.
If a police car is burned, who is paying for that ? Tax payers.
Every car burned costs us like anywhere around 37000 $ , every building burned down is even more expensive, people insured, police officers attacked all of this is expensive, it costs the tax payers money that will actively NOT go in programs that BLM should actually support, they hurt the very core they want to stand for, they build nothing and everything is way worse after the BLM mob leaves a place (they produce lots of trash and ever looked how the streets are ruined with
graffiti everywhere).
This is how it should be:
https://laist.com/2020/06/05/protest_south_los_angeles_cleanup_western_demonstration.php
Clean your neighborhood, do actual good, do something productive.
Thats great, and the total opposite of destruction.
"Systemic racism" is the fancy buzz word.
It has basically no meaning what so ever, as nobody is going to actually point the actual problem out, but just put everything they claim to be a problem under a mist of "Yea its systemic racism" , oh what exactly ? "Well you ..."
Its such nonsense.
There is prejudices against basically everyone, and some just do their utmost to foster these prejudices, by constantly seeking for problems, instead of actually doing something productive to help, they have a very real incentive to keep it going.
If i ask my black friends they are above all the racism talk, they are very well aware we are equal and they dont blame me or anybody else for anything, they get their asses up, work like anybody else and that alone fixes so much already.
If you have any kind of rock bottom people around you , either homeless, drug addicted or anything in that spectrum, people will try to avoid these people, in their best interest to not engage with them as its highly dangerous to get anywhere close to them (either because they are aggressive from the get go, criminal as they need money for drugs and all kinds of this issues).
Piling up misery like this in places is a sure fire way to make anything worse.
A community cannot survive with that much misery, somebody has to be strong enough to drag themselves out of it and build something up, so others can follow.
Just blaming others doesnt help nor solves any fundamental problems, it just keeps the people dependent and pushes them further away.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮