Former British Colony in Downward Spiral of Ethnic Violence, State Security Impunity

[Montmorency]

In recent years (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/29/how-western-media-would-cover-minneapolis-if-it-happened-another-country/), the international community has sounded the alarm on the deteriorating political and human rights situation in the United States under the regime of Donald Trump. Now, as the country marks 100,000 deaths from the coronavirus pandemic, the former British colony finds itself in a downward spiral of ethnic violence. The fatigue and paralysis of the international community are evident in its silence, America experts say.

The country has been rocked by several viral videos depicting extrajudicial executions of black ethnic minorities by state security forces. Uprisings erupted in the northern city of Minneapolis after a video circulated online of the killing of a black man, George Floyd, after being attacked by a security force agent. Trump took to Twitter, calling black protesters “THUGS”’ and threatening to send in military force. “When the looting starts, the shooting starts!” he declared.

“Sure, we get it that black people are angry about decades of abuse and impunity,” said G. Scott Fitz, a Minnesotan and member of the white ethnic majority. “But going after a Target crosses the line. Can’t they find a more peaceful way, like kneeling in silence?”

Ethnic violence has plagued the country for generations, and decades ago it captured the attention of the world, but recently the news coverage and concern are waning as there seems to be no end in sight to the oppression. “These are ancient, inexplicable hatreds fueling these ethnic conflicts and inequality," said Andreja Dulic, a foreign correspondent whose knowledge of American English consists of a semester course in college and the occasional session on the Duolingo app. When told the United States is only several hundred years old, he shrugged and said, “In my country, we have structures still from the Roman empire. In their culture, Americans think that a 150-year-old building is ancient history.”

Britain usually takes an acute interest in the affairs of its former colony, but it has also been affected by the novel coronavirus. “We’ve seen some setbacks with the virus, but some Brits see the rising disease, staggering unemployment and violence in the States and feel as if America was never ready to govern itself properly, that it would resort to tribal politics,” said Andrew Darcy Morthington, a London-based America expert. During the interview, a news alert informed that out of the nearly 40,000 coronavirus deaths in the United Kingdom, 61 percent of the health-care workers who have died were black and or have Middle Eastern backgrounds. Morthington didn’t seem to notice. “Like I was saying, we don’t have those American racism issues here.”

Trump, a former reality-TV host, beauty pageant organizer and businessman, once called African nations “shithole countries." But he is now taking a page from African dictators who spread bogus health remedies, like Yahya Jammeh of Gambia, who claimed he could cure AIDS with bananas and herbal potions and pushed his treatments onto the population, resulting in deaths. Trump appeared to suggest injecting bleach and using sunlight to kill the coronavirus. He has also said he has taken hydroxycholoroquine, a drug derived from quinine, a long-known jungle remedy for malaria. Doctors have advised against using the treatment to prevent or treat the coronavirus.

Meanwhile, Americans desperate to flee will face steep challenges to cross borders, as mismanagement of the coronavirus and ethnic tensions in the country have made them undesirable visitors. But some struggling American retailers, like Neiman Marcus, are hoping to lure shoppers with traditional 19th-century colonial travel fantasies through neutral khakis and cargo shorts as part of a “Modern Safari” collection. “Utilitarian details & muted tones meet classic femininity,” reads a caption under the photograph of a white woman. Pith helmets were not included in the accessory lineup.

Some nations are considering offering black Americans special asylum. “Members of the white ethnic majority are forming armed militia groups, demanding their freedom to go back to work for the wealthy class who refer to workers as ‘human capital stock,’ despite the huge risk to workers,” said Mustapha Okango, a Nairobi-based anthropologist. “This is a throwback to the days when slavery was the backbone of the American economy. Black slaves were the original essential workers, and they were treated as non-human stock.”

Africa could be an ideal asylum destination, as several African countries have managed to contain the coronavirus outbreak through aggressive early measures and innovations in testing kits. Senegal, a nation of 16 million, has only seen 41 deaths. “Everyone predicted Africa would fall into chaos,” Okango said. “It is proof that being a black person in this world doesn’t kill you, but being a black person in America clearly can.” The African Union did not respond to requests for comment, but it released a statement that said “we believe in American solutions for American problems.”

Around the world, grass-roots organizations, celebrities, human rights activists and even students are doing what they can to raise money and awareness about the dire situation in America.

“It’s sad that the Americans don’t have a government that can get them coronavirus tests or even monthly checks to be able to feed their families,” said Charlotte Johnson, a 18-year-old Liberian student activist, who survived the Ebola pandemic. “100,000 people are dead, cities are burning, and the country hasn’t had a day of mourning? Lives don’t matter, especially not black lives. It’s like they’re living in a failing state.”


https://twitter.com/tkerssen/status/1266921821653385225 [WATCH]

America is under a ready-made fucking fascist occupying force. We need comprehensive purges of the existing law enforcement institutions but even should the will to do it manifest, all a half-million suddenly-unemployed LEO would produce is a prompt Iraq-style sectarian meltdown.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/31/21276044/police-violence-protest-george-floyd
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-protests-police-violence.html
https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1266927169877483522
https://twitter.com/chimdesires/status/1267198829775990787

(At least here (https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1267107339833925634) a demonstration of the potential for alternatives to reckless psychopathy and sadism)

Mandated building closures are tyranny, but for the police to attack a person on their own porch is legitimate application of curfew authority. 5 minutes to failed-state-o-clock.

[Gilrandir]

I wonder what citizens of former Norman domain, former HRE, former Byzantium, and former Kalmar Union think of it.

[Gilrandir]

Is this racism (https://www.foxsports.com.au/basketball/nba/jr-smith-takes-down-man-in-la-after-his-car-window-was-smashed/news-story/9bebf55bd9a9af1c637a4604c0ae4790)?

One of these motherfu***ing white boys didn’t know where he was going and broke my f***ing window in my truck,” he says.

[Hooahguy]

No, that would be vernacular.

But let's definitely talk about white "allies" taking advantage of the situation to entertain their purge fantasies. I'm sure some are white nationalists trying to disrupt the protests but I think an uncomfortably large portion of the destruction of property has been perpetrated by white people who just want to destroy stuff. Id also wager a good deal of them are anarchists or cops who want to discredit the protests. A (https://twitter.com/Bluebook_Media/status/1266265407268065281?s=20) handful (https://twitter.com/Selena_Adera/status/1266707305158017029) of (https://twitter.com/Selena_Adera/status/1267177625233080321?s=20) videos (https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1266570453101031424?s=20) of what (https://twitter.com/NancyAFrench/status/1266900547342413825?s=20) I'm talking about.

[Tuuvi]

Is this racism (https://www.foxsports.com.au/basketball/nba/jr-smith-takes-down-man-in-la-after-his-car-window-was-smashed/news-story/9bebf55bd9a9af1c637a4604c0ae4790)?

One of these motherfu***ing white boys didn’t know where he was going and broke my f***ing window in my truck,” he says.

In light of everything that's been going on, who gives a shit? Of course some black people are going to hate white people, after everything they've been through why wouldn't they?

My take on the protests:

Government officials could've nipped all this chaos in the bud if they would've arrested all of the officers involved in George Floyd's murder, thrown the book at them, and conceded to the demands of Black Lives Matter and the black community, but they didn't because they are either opposed to ending police brutality and racist policing, they don't want to look weak in the face of public pressure, or they would face too much push back from the police and police unions.

So instead of addressing the needs of the black community, city and state governments have decided to suppress the protests using brute, militarized force, which has been the standard way of dealing with protests for the past decade, and they are raising the specter of "outside agitators", "white anarchists", and antifa in order to justify their crackdown and distract the public from the fact that they have no intention of doing anything to solve the problem of racist policing and police brutality.

[Hooahguy]

My take on the protests:

Government officials could've nipped all this chaos in the bud if they would've arrested all of the officers involved in George Floyd's murder, thrown the book at them, and conceded to the demands of Black Lives Matter and the black community, but they didn't because they are either opposed to ending police brutality and racist policing, they don't want to look weak in the face of public pressure, or they would face too much push back from the police and police unions.


I agree. If my memory serves, the protests started in earnest when the local prosecutor declined to bring charges against the cops involved, saying that he wouldnt rush to charge which justifiably set people off. And honestly only charging one of the four cops involved is not good, all four need to be brought up on charges.

But I think one of the biggest things that can be done in terms of reforming the police is to disband the police unions. While I am usually pro-union, they seem to be on the forefront of advocating for regressive policies from within and without.

[Greyblades]

The powers that be pulled back the police the first day as anger boiled over so thieves anarchists and revolution-larpers took the opportunity to pillage without repecussion.

The injustice forgotten and the needed lesson obscured in the face of smoke, blood and tear gas.

[Tuuvi]

No, that would be vernacular.

But let's definitely talk about white "allies" taking advantage of the situation to entertain their purge fantasies. I'm sure some are white nationalists trying to disrupt the protests but I think an uncomfortably large portion of the destruction of property has been perpetrated by white people who just want to destroy stuff. Id also wager a good deal of them are anarchists or cops who want to discredit the protests. A (https://twitter.com/Bluebook_Media/status/1266265407268065281?s=20) handful (https://twitter.com/Selena_Adera/status/1266707305158017029) of (https://twitter.com/Selena_Adera/status/1267177625233080321?s=20) videos (https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1266570453101031424?s=20) of what (https://twitter.com/NancyAFrench/status/1266900547342413825?s=20) I'm talking about.

There are anarchists who believe in rioting and property destruction as a protest tactic, but given that anarchists are anti-racist and anti-police any rioting done by them was in support of the protest, no anarchist worth their salt would want to intentionally discredit a popular uprising.

Either way, like I said above all this talk about who was rioting and for what reason is just a distraction from the real issue at hand, which is that the government has responded to a protest against police brutality with even more police brutality, and the government's actions over these past few days has really dark implications for the future of our constitutional and civil rights. It's entirely possible that we'll be living under martial law in the next few days or so, if things don't subside.

[Hooahguy]

There are anarchists who believe in rioting and property destruction as a protest tactic, but given that anarchists are anti-racist and anti-police any rioting done by them was in support of the protest, no anarchist worth their salt would want to intentionally discredit a popular uprising.

But what tactics are they using to support the protests? I think its safe to say that smashing things is a common protest tactic of anarchists, which of course ends up taking away focus from the protests. Anyways I agree that its a distraction from the real issue at hand. Things are definitely getting crazy though, and DC is now under curfew from 7pm for the next two nights. I live fairly close to the White House so the sounds of sirens and helicopters has been pretty much constant.

[Greyblades]

Not entirely sure how looting and burning black owned/employing businesses were supposed to support the protests.

[Tuuvi]

In light of Trump trying to blame the uprising on anarchists/antifa and get the military involved, I think you all should read about the Jakarta Method (https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/05/18/how-jakarta-became-the-codeword-for-us-backed-mass-killing/), which was the mass slaughter of Indonesian leftists that was backed and supported by the CIA. If the US can self-justify mass murder of civilians abroad I think they can do it domestically too if the crisis gets bad enough or if they can convince themselves that leftists are enough of a threat.

Maybe I'm just letting the anxiety of it all get to me but I think that things could get really ugly, and even if it doesn't come to that I think we are witnessing the end of liberal democracy as we know it.

[Greyblades]

You are letting the anxiety of it all get to you.

[Tuuvi]

Ok. We'll see what happens.

[Hooahguy]

For anyone who might be curious how the Instagram influencers are handling this: Exhibit A (https://twitter.com/ewufortheloss/status/1267539200846389249?s=20) and B (https://twitter.com/BitzOfFitz/status/1267627717316378632?s=20).

:wall:

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/DMRj6Pq.jpg

The city is fallen.



The president apparently personally directed a peaceful concentration to be broken up because he wanted to feel tough.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/white-house-protesters-teargassed-for-trump-photo-op.html


What is it with police and shooting people in the face with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters? It's like around the country they've made eye-plucking doctrine, as they seem to have with attacking or arresting reporters on sight. (Graphic imagery!)
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1267029301389492224

CW: lots of blood.
Sacramento: A young boy is shot in the eye by police during a peaceful #BlackLivesMatter protest tonight at the State Capitol.
https://twitter.com/notbalin/status/1266972999296704513

To anybody curious. My eye ruptured when a FWPD Officer unnecessarily and improperly fired a tear gas canister at my head hitting my eye. I’ll be fine but I’m probably losing my eye after surgery tomorrow.
https://twitter.com/SaudiaSakari/status/1267134500087062528

UPDATE: My aunt is stable, she was shot with a rubber bullet by a snipper on top of a building between her eyes. We cant speak to or visit her because of Covid-19, they are currently trying to save her eye, but she might lose it. I don’t even know what to say.
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1267281344649932806

Grand Rapids, MI: man yells at police from a distance, a police officer walks up and pepper sprays him...

...then another officer shoots him directly in the face with a teargas canister
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1267528084393283584

Dallas, TX: police shoot out the eye of an unarmed black man for sport

This is at least the *4th* person whose eye has been shot out by police in the past 3 days


I've seen and heard of all sorts of authoritarian tactics and brutality from American police towards protesters before, but this level of brazen, concerted, persistent, aggression and performative cruelty only, *cough*, elsewhere. I've watched dozens of these clips today, which is probably not healthy.



I wonder what citizens of former Norman domain, former HRE, former Byzantium, and former Kalmar Union think of it.

I don't understand.


While I am usually pro-union, they seem to be on the forefront of advocating for regressive policies from within and without.

Good points on the subject from a labor historian (https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/06/what-to-do-about-police-unions). Basically, police are workers and retain the right to bargain for labor standards. But police oversight, as a matter of state regulation, should be entirely out of their ambit.


First, there is no evidence that police without unions are somehow less horrifying or violent than those with unions.

Second, all workers deserve collective bargaining rights.

Third, the labor movement is not about justice. It’s about two sides with sometimes divergent interests sitting down and bargaining.

Fourth, it is in the public’s interest to force the police unions to give up the blank check for violence that they currently have. That should be an absolute demand of any city negotiating with the police unions.

Fifth, the labor movement has no obligation to stand with unions that are awful. It is rare that the AFL-CIO kicks out unions–pretty much just the communist unions after Taft-Hartley and the Teamsters for corruption, though lots of unions have chosen to disaffiliate with the federation. There is no reason why the federation should not evict the police unions. The police unions are antithetical to the entire concept of solidarity.

Sixth, such a move would be more symbolic than anything else. It’s not as if the AFL-CIO provides invaluable resources for unions to survive.

Seventh, do not underestimate the potential support for police unions from the more conservative unions in the federation, particularly some of the building trades. Evicting the police unions would not be uncontested. Some unions absolutely support this. Others would be quite reticent.

Eighth, eliminating police unions may sound like a panacea for these problems of racism and violence and fascism, but it’s really not.

In conclusion, we can crack down on the police unions without eliminating them entirely. It is absolutely in the public interest that we do this. All of the behavior of the police is completely unacceptable. But it’s unlikely that unionbusting actually solves any of these problems.


There are anarchists who believe in rioting and property destruction as a protest tactic, but given that anarchists are anti-racist and anti-police any rioting done by them was in support of the protest, no anarchist worth their salt would want to intentionally discredit a popular uprising.

Either way, like I said above all this talk about who was rioting and for what reason is just a distraction from the real issue at hand, which is that the government has responded to a protest against police brutality with even more police brutality, and the government's actions over these past few days has really dark implications for the future of our constitutional and civil rights. It's entirely possible that we'll be living under martial law in the next few days or so, if things don't subside.

It's a tactic I would attribute to black bloc specifically.

I have no idea what the exact distribution of destruction and vandalism is between white or non-white, local or visitor, far-left and far-right, police-instigated (https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1267523455827750912) or endogenous, but there are clearly different categories and contexts of behavior. I have no problem with throwing bottles at cop cars, but smashing synagogues and POC-owned businesses and spreading neighborhood-hazardous arsonism are bad and shouldn't happen. If nonresidents are perpetrating the latter even over the wishes and protests of local demonstrators, that's a real problem of "chaos tourism." Kind of awkward if there's white cosplayers vandalizing in the night and black residents cleaning up in the morning.


You are letting the anxiety of it all get to you.

The President days ago retweeted a speaker declaring that "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat." Senator Tom Cotton was just today demanding war crimes against protesters. Also having recently introduced the SECURE CAMPUS Act in the Senate that would prohibit Chinese nationals from receiving student visas for STEM graduate studies.
https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1371
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

"Student visas should be only for those who want to contribute to our research institutions and advance our national interests."

So we need to import young communists and anarchists who will militate for the eradication of the Republican party. It's 2020, where's our era's Sacco and Vanzetti anyway?

The existential confrontation with the fascist front is, it goes without saying, anxiety-inducing.

[rory_20_uk]

Just to be clear - by landmass more of this turd is French and Spanish land, not that of a British colony.

What is the surprise? The USA has been doing this for hundreds of years. Only the methods have changed.

The only hope of systemic change is if people vote. And it will probably require a new single issue party to get block votes - probably starting at a local level - to effect change. Would whites really vote for such extreme change that would materially effect themselves? Frankly I doubt it.

The USA continues to have guns even after a lot of white middle class children were killed. Poor black petty criminals? Not much hope

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

In light of Trump trying to blame the uprising on anarchists/antifa and get the military involved, I think you all should read about the Jakarta Method (https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/05/18/how-jakarta-became-the-codeword-for-us-backed-mass-killing/), which was the mass slaughter of Indonesian leftists that was backed and supported by the CIA. If the US can self-justify mass murder of civilians abroad I think they can do it domestically too if the crisis gets bad enough or if they can convince themselves that leftists are enough of a threat.

Maybe I'm just letting the anxiety of it all get to me but I think that things could get really ugly, and even if it doesn't come to that I think we are witnessing the end of liberal democracy as we know it.

End of Liberal Democracy??!? LOL - a fairy story.

There was the Cold War, then the War on Drugs, then the War on Terror. All required mass surveillance, police oversight, incarceration and increasingly draconian laws. Secret Terror courts. In the name of Freedom. Oh, and Victory!

The police are using assault rifles they've been given for decades. Using tactics that the Brownshirts would recognise. SWATing is a verb.Your police force in New York has a budget that is greater than the military of nations.

About 100 years ago your sentiment would be timely - then only non-whites were victimised. And the poor of course. Perhaps a Liberal Oligarchy at that point? Now more of an Illiberal Oligarchy.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

I don't understand.


In your post, America was referred to as a former British colony. I thought it was weird to thus refer to a country that has been independent for the last 350 years, so I referred to many present day countries in the same way: Britain as the former Norman domain, Germany as the former HRE, Greece as the former Byzantium, as Sweden and Norway as the former Kalmar Union.

[rory_20_uk]

In your post, America was referred to as a former British colony. I thought it was weird to thus refer to a country that has been independent for the last 350 years, so I referred to many present day countries in the same way: Britain as the former Norman domain, Germany as the former HRE, Greece as the former Byzantium, as Sweden and Norway as the former Kalmar Union.

I think it was supposed to draw parallels with Hong Kong - another territory which is oh-so much better off with its freedom.

~:smoking:

[ReluctantSamurai]

What is the surprise? The USA has been doing this for hundreds of years. Only the methods have changed.

Not really:

https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.4/indigenous-affairs-education-land-grab-universities


Consider the Dakota cession of 1851. Four Dakota bands signed treaties at Mendota and Traverse des Sioux, Minnesota, in the summer of 1851, relinquishing nearly all Dakota territory in Mni Sota Makoce, “The Land Where the Waters Reflect the Clouds.” They did so in response to the withholding of rations, the threat of violence, enforced starvation, the killing of game and the destruction of agriculture. Call it coercion. In the following years, Congress unilaterally altered the agreements and delayed annuity payments. Faced with crop failures and widespread graft by white traders, a Dakota faction fought back in 1862. In response, Gov. Alexander Ramsey called for the extermination or exile of the Dakotas and deployed U.S. Army and militia units to end the so-called “Dakota War.” Congress would go on to abrogate Dakota treaties and expel the bands from the state, but before it did, Lincoln authorized the largest mass execution in U.S. history: In December 1862, the U.S. Army hanged 38 Dakota men for their participation in the insurrection.

Not so much different than what's happening today, nearly 160 years later.

[Greyblades]

The existential confrontation with the fascist front is, it goes without saying, anxiety-inducing.

*sigh* Insert dismissive and obscene yet tasteful gesture here.


The USA continues to have guns even after a lot of white middle class children were killed. Poor black petty criminals? Not much hope

~:smoking:

The only alternative to guns is a quick and effective police force that can be trusted to protect life and property... do I need to illustrate the problem here?

[ReluctantSamurai]

The only alternative to guns is a quick and effective police force that can be trusted to protect life and property... do I need to illustrate the problem here?

Obviously, you have to be blind and/or tone deaf~:eek:

Do you even understand what the term "Black Lives Matter" means? If George Floyd had been a white banker, the scenario in Minneapolis doesn't happen. If Timothy Thomas was a white college kid, he'd still be alive today. Or Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin.....etc, etc, etc. And does an effective police force mean tear gas and rubber bullets?

I don't see that you are able to 'illustrate the problem' without understanding the depth and length that racism has in this country...an understanding you seem to lack:shrug:

But how about you start with some simple numbers:

https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-americans/

[a completely inoffensive name]

The powers that be pulled back the police the first day as anger boiled over so thieves anarchists and revolution-larpers took the opportunity to pillage without repecussion.

The injustice forgotten and the needed lesson obscured in the face of smoke, blood and tear gas.

The situation could have been defused if Trump had simply addressed the nation early on, had the DOJ take over from local officials in prosecuting the officer and, you know, actually had the man arrested promptly along with the negligent officers.
The fact that you seem to believe this only had been defused with decisive force just goes to show how much you dehumanize others which is not surprising cause you are alt right.


Not entirely sure how looting and burning black owned/employing businesses were supposed to support the protests.

Not sure how police abuse is supposed to support the claim that property > lives.

https://youtu.be/Byk2axDVNHE

My question to you. In that 16 min video point out which episodes where justified with time stamps.

[Greyblades]

Obviously, you have to be blind and/or tone deaf~:eek:

Do you even understand what the term "Black Lives Matter" means? If George Floyd had been a white banker, the scenario in Minneapolis doesn't happen. If Timothy Thomas was a white college kid, he'd still be alive today. Or Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin.....etc, etc, etc. And does an effective police force mean tear gas and rubber bullets?

I don't see that you are able to 'illustrate the problem' without understanding the depth and length that racism has in this country...an understanding you seem to lack:shrug:



The one lacking understanding is you, for you have misinterpreted my argument and only served to reinforce my point: If you cant trust the police to protect you where can you turn?

Take away guns and you place sole responsability towards the protection of the populace upon the police, I didnt think you needed explaining why that isnt always a good solution: George Floyd should be an expert lesson!

[ReluctantSamurai]

The one lacking understanding is you, for you have misinterpreted my argument

Misinterpreted? Not likely. It's the same rhetoric being spouted by our Fearless Leader. The Iron Fist approach.....


George Floyd should be an expert lesson!

And this just makes my point about your lack of understanding of how racism in this country works. Yes, it's an expert lesson on how NOT to do things. There is no police training manual anywhere in the US that states you kneel on the neck of a handcuffed suspect that is clearly in distress for 8 or 9 minutes until he dies.....right there on the pavement! It's called murder, my friend:inquisitive: And the biggest point of all that you are missing completely is that if George Floyd was white, none of that would have happened.

You want to see a better way to handle protesters?

https://www.today.com/news/michigan-sheriff-christopher-swanson-explains-removing-gear-join-protesters-t182809


Swanson's choice to put down his weapons and riot gear also came in the moment. "It was probably the worst tactical decision I could make by taking off all of my protection and going into the crowd, but the benefit far outweighed the risk,'' he said. "I'm not trying to be a macho or a hero, I just tell you that that was the best decision to show that I am not going to create a divide, I'm going to show vulnerability and walk in the crowd and make the first move."

@ACIN


had the DOJ take over from local officials in prosecuting the officer and, you know, actually had the man arrested promptly along with the negligent officers.

And therein is one of root causes for police brutality....an officer like Derek Chauvin could maintain excessive physical restraint on a suspect for the duration he did because he didn't fear any repercussions, as happens all too often when the suspect is black.

[Montmorency]

My browser crashed.

Sorry Rory, but I will say the thread title is pulled from the parody I quoted in the OP. The concept of 'How would American media report these events if they were happening in a different country?'

Sorry Greyblades, but the only good Greyblades is a dead Greyblades.

Sorry Samurai, I had a lot to say. But check this out.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/01/bob-kroll-george-floyd-minneapolis-police-union-chief
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minneapolis-police-rendered-44-people-unconscious-neck-restraints-five-years-n1220416
And Camden NJ stuff.


I had videos of police attacking foreign correspondents from Australia and Germany (Deutsche Welle), and that this seemed worse somehow than when they attack American reporters. Won't reproduce the commentary.


Boston last Sunday.
https://i.imgur.com/q9x4VCI.jpg

DC last Sunday.
https://i.imgur.com/5rLISAO.jpg


8 PM curfew in Manhattan today, following yesterday night's Midtown looting.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A lack of publicly available use-of-force data from other departments makes it difficult to compare Minneapolis to other cities of the same or any size.

And this is one of the problems for accountability, along with non-transparency of a particular officers active duty record. This is why officers like Chauvin don't have much fear of repercussions when they employ excessive force.

And then this:


More than a dozen police officials and law enforcement experts told NBC News that the particular tactic Chauvin used — kneeling on a suspect's neck — is neither taught nor sanctioned by any police agency. A Minneapolis city official told NBC News Chauvin's tactic is not permitted by the Minneapolis police department. For most major police departments, variations of neck restraints, known as chokeholds, are highly restricted — if not banned outright.
Blades

And if you didn't take the two minutes to look at the Statista link I provided, take a gander at this:


The Minnesota police data showed three-fifths of those subjected to neck restraints and then rendered unconscious were black. About 30 percent were white. Two were Native Americans. Almost all are male, and three-quarters were age 40 or under.

And straight from the Minneapolis Police Dept. manual:


The on-line version of the policy manual says, "The unconscious neck restraint shall only be applied … 1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or; 2. For life saving purposes, or; 3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective."

None of those points applied to George Floyd.

[Hooahguy]

Huge thread (https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1267594159776501761?s=20) on Twitter of 150+ videos of cops brutalizing peaceful protesters. Every single one of these videos is extremely disturbing.

Also a video (https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1267670735645966338?s=20)of cops casually smashing car windows as they pass by.

[Montmorency]

Huge thread (https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1267594159776501761?s=20) on Twitter of 150+ videos of cops brutalizing peaceful protesters. Every single one of these videos is extremely disturbing.

Also a video (https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1267670735645966338?s=20)of cops casually smashing car windows as they pass by.

Oh yeah, one sentiment I had wanted to state.

An example. Cops who, in violation of all sound practice, legal right, and human decency, choose to fire rubber bullets and gas canisters in the faces of distant protesters - typically with intent to harm - should, where not prevented from ever having advanced to that stage in the profession in the first place by the arrangement of the system, be promptly terminated and banned on a national level from any future position of authority, along with their supervisors and superiors who nurture, direct, protect, and enable them at every step. Coordinate to which must be resolute application of criminal proceedings against each individual and case, because the state must directly and formally account for the great transgression against the social contract and civic integrity that is the lawless, the corrupt, the abusive, the predatory conduct of its authorized agents and offices.

As individuals and institutions, the large majority of police today should not be endowed with authority and weapons. They are an active danger and detriment to our society. We have to understand this as one of the root truths of the situation to proceed. I don't say this in an All Lives Matter sense, but white middle-class "moderates" need to understand that these thug cops and their countless ancillaries would and could happily and easily do the same shit to them and their families if given half a chance. Unless you think you're poised to lord it over the rest as an aristocrat, all of us have a stake in leashing these dangerous servants and transforming the work they do. Take it as a Niebuhrian Niemollerian lesson.

[Pannonian]

Misinterpreted? Not likely. It's the same rhetoric being spouted by our Fearless Leader. The Iron Fist approach.....



And this just makes my point about your lack of understanding of how racism in this country works. Yes, it's an expert lesson on how NOT to do things. There is no police training manual anywhere in the US that states you kneel on the neck of a handcuffed suspect that is clearly in distress for 8 or 9 minutes until he dies.....right there on the pavement! It's called murder, my friend:inquisitive: And the biggest point of all that you are missing completely is that if George Floyd was white, none of that would have happened.

You want to see a better way to handle protesters?

https://www.today.com/news/michigan-sheriff-christopher-swanson-explains-removing-gear-join-protesters-t182809



@ACIN



And therein is one of root causes for police brutality....an officer like Derek Chauvin could maintain excessive physical restraint on a suspect for the duration he did because he didn't fear any repercussions, as happens all too often when the suspect is black.

Have you read Night Watch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE-QNre6s0Q)?

[rory_20_uk]

The one lacking understanding is you, for you have misinterpreted my argument and only served to reinforce my point: If you cant trust the police to protect you where can you turn?

Take away guns and you place sole responsability towards the protection of the populace upon the police, I didnt think you needed explaining why that isnt always a good solution: George Floyd should be an expert lesson!

Except that this doesn't work - certainly not for minorities in the USA. Although an individual can probably outrun the nation of the USA, no group can have an organised life with any sort of normality where they try to outfight the nation. Do you honestly think if the protesters were shooting at the police they'd be winning?

Should George have drawn a gun and shot the four police officers? He'd need something pretty impressive to kill four police before he got killed and would need to shoot before he can be overpowered. And there's four of them of course. Ergo, he should pop to the shops with an AR-15 on his back, or perhaps an MP-5 or other sub machine gun or PDW.
The police killed him after a 911 call that he used a fake $20. If he'd had a gun sufficiently powerful to survive the police, the 911 caller would have been telling the police about an armed black criminal so now the response will be substantively greater - probably a SWAT team of 5-6 officers.
So for George to purchase his groceries needs to have... erm... body armour (probably ceramic plate, since the response will be carrying assault rifles), ideally a defensive shield (ceramic plates are only good for a few shots at best), helmet (SWAT are good shots), gas mask (tear gas), one or two PDWs or an AR-15 (to successfully kill or incapacitate 6 trained officers will require rapid and accurate shooting) which in either case would need to be able to penetrate armour since they'll be wearing at least standard bullet proof vests.
To play it safe, he'd better deploy some claymore mines or other explosives outside the store before he goes in since walking in with guns and armour they'll call the police before he even gets to pay and this way he can mitigate them firing from multiple directions as he leaves from a fixed exit.
OK... So he manged to kill the first response team who were sent in with his guns and so on. I imagine as soon as the shooting starts, they'll escalate to either a helicopter, perhaps and APC or the other ex-military equipment the police in the USA have along with a lot more troops. So realistically, to manage to get home with the groceries he'll need an anti-material rifle. Something like a .50 with the right ammo might work - ideally a RPG but the damn government infringed his second amendment rights with not allowing this to be owned... Frankly he really needs a second person on a rooftop to provide overwatch. His car better be up-armoured to survive as well...

No wonder more and more people shop online.

Every hick with their own shotgun and family blood feud sounds like a comedy set in the boonies, not a civilised society. But then that has been Europe's view of the USA for... quite some time. The average person won't even be able to fight off burglars since unless you sleep in your kelvar vest, have the gun in a safe by the bed, wake up instantly and have the children further away from where the break in occurred (best have no windows on all bedrooms, just to be sure), there's a good chance the first thing you know is when there's a gun pointing at you whilst in bed.

One key plank of society is believing lies - and a key lie is that committing crimes will lead to punishment. Of course it doesn't - but most of us believe it enough of the time that we follow the rules which benefits us all more than breaking them would. This also relies on having a police force that that functions by consent - which is a concept that the USA hasn't grasped either, from the troopers to the President. You've got something equivalent to an occupying paramilitary.

~:smoking:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Have you read Night Watch?

No. The You Tube reading was rather boring. So Vimes=Chris Swanson? The only thing of significance, to me, was the would-be archer assassin with no ID. Kinda like the pallets of bricks mysteriously showing up at various demonstrations:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/investigating-bricks-at-protests

QAnon is going to have a field day....:rolleyes:


One key plank of society is believing lies - and a key lie is that committing crimes will lead to punishment. Of course it doesn't - but most of us believe it enough of the time that we follow the rules which benefits us all more than breaking them would.

It's called Wizard's First Rule:


"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true.

(From Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth book series.)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I disagree with labeling us a former UK colony -- too much of the territory and history was never under Brit control (we stole/bought/conquered it from others). On the other hand, I did smirk a bit at the sardonic humor parallel with the other thread.


We are in the midst of a huge crisis regarding the rule of law as practiced. Our criminal justice system is failing us. Cop culture has become, in far too much of our country, functionally (sometimes overtly) racist, and entirely too militaristic. Americans of African descent in particular, do not only not feel served and protected but targeted. They have withdrawn their consent to be policed in this fashion -- as they should.

[Strike For The South]

Policing in America is in need of a total and complete overhaul. Post 1968 the confluence of law and order candidates, rise of violent crime(which has sharply fallen), and the war on drugs has led to an overly militarized police force with little oversight. Combine this with the siege mentality imparted by the second amendment and it is a recipe for disaster.

Then we have to get into the corruption and the in group, out group dynamic of policing. The thin blue line mantra is a nice way to explore this mentality. On one side you have the proverbial good citizens and on the other side the bad criminals. The only thing that separates these to entities is the small amount of LEOs. This idea is absurd on its face because it supposes the citizens and criminals are not only static and different but that they are kept separated by the law. Barring some sort of thought crime device that would be impossible. One wouldn't think to take this literally except for the facts that the cops do.

It must be stressed policing is a fundamentally reactive job. A crime happens, and the cops show up after it is done. In order to increase their own efficacy, many departments have implemented proactive policing methods. This means that cops are around what are deemed high risk neighborhoods. Of course a high risk neighborhood tends to be poor and black an if the police are hanging around they will eventually find something. There is an old saying among defense attorneys, the average person commits three felonies a day.

Then once you are arrested you are thrown into a judicial system which is confusing and scary without adequate legal representation. It should come as no surprise to anyone that many innocent people plead out due to fear. Some of the heinous "tough on crime" sentencing procedures are finally being unraveled but it is a slow process.

So you have to take that kind of policing and lay it over Americas racial landscape. While the killings are obviously the most heinous manifestations of enforcement, the biggest disparities between racial groups in America comes in the wether they are sentenced to prison and for how long.

America has 24% of the worlds incarcerated persons. 40% of those incarcerated are Black. That means roughly 10% of all the worlds incarcerated people are Black Americans. To get a sense of proportion, Black Americans are about .6 percent of the worlds population. So one most ask themselves how do they end being incarcerated at a rate 20x their share of population. The answer is a combination of Americas obsession with punishment and racism. A quarter of Americas incarcerated people have not even been convicted or sentenced, the simply can't afford to pay bail!

The racial data on policing is pretty obvious. Black Americans are stopped more, searched more, arrested more, and sentenced more harshly than their white counterparts. Any one of these things can begin a cycle that can be nearly impossible to get out of. This of course is on top of the slavery, segregation, black codes, and red linings that have shut Black Americans out of a lot wealth and upward mobility.

A felony or even a misdemeanor conviction in America shuts you out of so much. You lose out on jobs, housing, state assistance. Any actual hope of re entering society is ground out by barriers set up once you have served you sentence. The felony follows you forever, a veritable scarlet letter. America is not a forgiving place, it is a punitive place and that is especially true if you are Black.

So I don't have a ton of time for people who say "All lives matter" unironically because that is nothing but erasure. To look at the arc of American history and not understand the inequities imposed upon Black people is ignorance at best. It is the same reason why I can't buy in to a lot of the class reductionist arguments that are making their rounds. Classism and Racism are two real and different things. So While I support something like M4A and think it will help everyone, including Black people, I do not assume these policies will result in any changing of the systemic racism.

I don't really think there is much to be gained from trying to tease out a reason for the looting and destruction beyond a basic non response from the government and the 30% unemployment we are currently hovering around. People looking to pin this on Antifa, the alr-right, or undercover cops will all probably find individual examples but will fall short of some nationwide masterplan.

I do think a lot of the worst offenses are done by people not from the neighborhoods they are destroying. Someone used the phrase chaos tourism earlier and I think that very much fits what we see happening. A lot of downwardly mobile white people trying to exploit Black peoples grievances for their own gain. Of course each city has its own character and of course each city is saying all of these people are coming from somewhere else.

I am not necessarily going to weep for a Target but I will weep for people and small business owners who live in these neighborhoods that have become epicenters for destruction. This is just compounding their troubles. Their cry for humanity and justice is being met with their homes and wealth being destroyed.

Ive thrown up on this page but the three books I recommend to everyone are "The New Jim Crow", "The Rise of The Warrior Cop", and "The Color of Law". These three books are relatively easy, short reads but very illuminating.

[Hooahguy]

Someone posted this on a Facebook group Im in and I felt it deserved sharing:


It's been tough to sort out how to support during the past few weeks, and I guess what I'd like to do is share.I graduated Law Enforcement Academy in 2011, hired to work at both a small department and LE for the DNR in 2012. Through those experiences I'd like to share some things ...

1) You are taught two very opposing things: first, that you are disposable. The number of times that we witnessed on video cops getting hit by vehicles, shot, stabbed, and even gassed by a tank of anhydrous ammonia was enough to get you to understand that, in reality, you need to accept this.

2) In accepting this, as in TRULY accepting this, you overcome the fear that will make you be afraid to die. When you don't have that fear you think quicker, you act quicker, and crazy as it is that is what keeps you from death, sometimes.

3) Because you know that you are disposable, and because you have continuous trauma in your life on the job, you learn that your lifeline is the people that you work with: your backup, your mutual aid, your dispatchers, etc. The shared trauma and bonds that area created ensure that you all go home. That you have each others backs. That you live until the end of your shift.

4) There is a complaint process. You can file complaints on officers when you feel like they have messed up, wrongly arrested, have broken the law, etc. However, how that complaint is handled depends on two things (1) how close that division is to the department and (2) the culture of the department.

5) So a discussion on culture ... I've been on ride alongs with 6 different departments, worked mutual aid with 7, and directly worked for 2 different bureaus. Even in the same county they are different. The one I worked for directly doesn't exist anymore and for good reason. One removed the radar from their cars - directive was on crime not on speed patrol (and it worked). One was much more concerned about the appearance of the town and community. The rest were amazing. Culture sets a tone, and that tone starts with where the community feels the importance lies. The problem is that once a culture is established, it's very difficult to change. There is now a "way things are done," performed by a group of individuals who have accepted that they are disposable and have shared trauma with bonds that ensure that they all have each other's backs. So they can go home at night. And these cultures can last for generations.

6) Where. It. Went. Wrong ... Well, it went wrong in a lot of places. (1) if you have a culture that is grounded in suppressing high crime rates you have the potential to attract those who get off dominating people. And for those who wish to dominate people, this is the perfect way to do it. And since those areas have the most opportunity to dominate and a culture of shared-trauma-cover-my-ass-everyone-goes-home-at-night they have the opportunity to flourish with little to keep them in check. ... (2) if you have a division handling complaints that is not INDEPENDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT then you have no way to keep those corrupt or aggressive officers in check. This also makes it harder for one officer to report on another officer ... (3) if you as an officer have not had your genuine "OH SHIT" moment where it's OK for you not to go home, you harbor an unhealthy fear of death. That fear will make you jump from asking to see a license to grabbing for your weapon way WAY out of play with reality. That needs to be recognized and addressed at the FTO level... (4) initial training, continuous training, and evaluations. Initial training that focuses more on communication and conflict resolution than DAAT and firearms tactics. I learned so much more under the DNR's culture on how to handle situations so they did NOT escalate, because their's was a culture where it was about finding solutions and listening instead of hunting for reasons to cite someone, which was my village cop job culture.

7) How. Do. We. Fix. It ... (1) More surveillance to protect everyone involved (body cameras). No one should have to rely on a random cell phone to see what happened. ... (2) A division that handle's complaints that is independent of the department that has its roots in criminal law/enforcement. Independent in processes, but educated in the job. ... (3) Training that also focuses on verbal tactics, negotiation, and conflict resolution. Because if you can start by defusing the situation, you are way less likely to escalate it... (4) Money from citations goes to the governing body and NOT the department. Getting informed on the side about funding goals as I'm getting pulled into an office for giving out a lot of warnings instead of writing paper but covering your ass as a chief by saying "Not that we have quotas or anything" is NOT THE GOAL OF POLICE WORK. I'm sorry, but when I pull a car over for an exhaust system that is dragging on the ground that I want fixed, writing a citation isn't anything but a funding move. He needs a 5-day R&R to make him fix the thing. THAT is what needs to happen. The fact that my forest with the DNR got zero funds back from all citations written was, in hindsight, a Godsend.

Most cops work in this world. A world where their own culture sets them up for failure because the support structure it needs to offer protection to do a job that forces them to give their life up daily also protects those violent or inept ones who, at least, should be fired if not prosecuted. A world where the public beast loves them one moment and wants to slaughter them the next. A world where their focus may be on their community, but they may have to deal with a chief whose focus is budgetary. We can march all we like, we can protest, and make memes and black out our social media walls, but until we have a governing body that can restructure the system of accountability, an education platform that is uniform and refocused, and a local restructuring of police funding and focus on surveillance, then we will accomplish nothing more than the temporary gains and losses that have been going on for decades.

[Greyblades]

Misinterpreted? Not likely. It's the same rhetoric being spouted by our Fearless Leader. The Iron Fist approach.....



And this just makes my point about your lack of understanding of how racism in this country works. Yes, it's an expert lesson on how NOT to do things. There is no police training manual anywhere in the US that states you kneel on the neck of a handcuffed suspect that is clearly in distress for 8 or 9 minutes until he dies.....right there on the pavement! It's called murder, my friend:inquisitive: And the biggest point of all that you are missing completely is that if George Floyd was white, none of that would have happened.

And you think it would be a good idea to make the institution that put those cops on the front line the only recourse the people of minneapolis have in the face of violence? Thats what gun control would mean for minnesota and many other states.

Better start hoping that this time widespread reforms happen, I mean it didnt all the other times a national outrage descended into looting and arson. A lot of areas stayed so through a lot of different governers, mayors, police chiefs, presidents, but a chance's a chance that this time it'll be different, I guess.

And once you've gotten your reformed better trained police, better hope that they dont get redirected from defending you into by whichever politician ends up with power over them.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Thats what gun control would mean for minnesota and many other states.

When were we ever talking about gun control~:confused: This whole thread is about overly militaristic police, and the unequal, and unjust, violence done on minority races.:inquisitive:

And please just stop with the 'thin blue line' crap. Read the second paragraph in Strikes post earlier:no:

[Tuuvi]

So I don't have a ton of time for people who say "All lives matter" unironically because that is nothing but erasure. To look at the arc of American history and not understand the inequities imposed upon Black people is ignorance at best. It is the same reason why I can't buy in to a lot of the class reductionist arguments that are making their rounds. Classism and Racism are two real and different things. So While I support something like M4A and think it will help everyone, including Black people, I do not assume these policies will result in any changing of the systemic racism.

The real meaning behind the "All lives matter" slogan was revealed by the guy in Salt Lake who was screaming it while trying to murder protestors with a bow and arrow.

[Strike For The South]

Hooah I think that post is poisoned from the start. Cops are in no way disposable. Not only is the risk of dying on the job much lower than a myriad of other blue collar professions, but they have union protections even the French can't dream of. This is the siege mentality I am talking about. The chance of a cop dying on patrol is exceedingly low. However, if you implant that fear in them, it becomes a much worse situation for everyone.

This adversarial relationship its hell on interactions. Its why many cops buy into the thin blue line. The mental side of the job is the most taxing bit. Of course the mental side is the one we have totally ignored. An interaction with a cop is the most stressful part of most peoples day, maybe week. The cop is introduced to that stress over and over again. That is the part of the job that is the worst and that I don't envy.

I don't really have answers so I don't want to come off as dogging your friend but we need to asses the level of danger in good faith.

[Montmorency]

This is quite a resource.
https://blacklivesmatters.carrd.co/#

Heh
https://twitter.com/23rdButterfly/status/1267986452471787523
https://twitter.com/DwayneJay/status/1267957384623919105

In that vein...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i-b6x0-GeM


Aight man, here’s a book I wrote about cops in New York
(Son, do you know what I’m stoppin' you for?)
You know, I’m sayin' fuck the police, fuck the NYPD
(Son, do you know what he’s stoppin' you for?)
They never made me feel safer

[Verse 1]
He had the badge ID covered in black tape (covered)
Irish dude spends his weekends in blackface (a weirdo!)
Smacking Immigrants, asking them how the crack taste (Guatamalans!)
Mushed his pregnant wife face while she lactate (a bad man!)
Over-overseeing the rat race
Goes to Cape Cod when Manhattan feels too fast paced
Now he hate God, disgraced, odd and out of place
And he takes it out on us (his experience)
Victor told me what happened with them BART cops
Told ‘em, “Yo, I ain’t ever met a smart cop” (they’re idiots)
Alec said no one heard of you like a cool cop
In '01 almost shot the fair one with a school cop
Heema for Louima cause they could have did'd me wrong (I’m brown!)
That’s word to Eleanor Bumpurs in a Lou Reed song
Protect and serve, keep from the way of harm
Timothy Stansbury was 19 and unarmed

[Hook x2]
Ayo, fuck the New York pricks and dicks
Who wanna be a cop but a power hungry idiot?

The worst people!
New York cops are the worst!

[Verse 2]
Oy vey, these guys is New York’s spineless
Strangled and denied it for Anthony Baez
They was cruel, maybe had a pool, probably
That was ‘94, he was one of three bodies (unarmed)
Ernest Sayon (unarmed)
And Johnnie Cromartie (unarmed)
Under Giuliani, well, they had them a party (bang bang!)
In '73, there were riots in Queens (Jamaica)
When they merked Clifford Glover, he wasn’t even a teen (a child!)
Used to be nine, he had just turned ten (a child!)
Pig said, “Die, you little fuck” and got off clean (yup)
And ain’t a thing that these bars do
That can make up for the pain of the family of Fermin Arzu
They the ones who always put the firearms pon you (on you!)
But shoot and say they thought you had a gun up in the car, dude (there’s no gun, no gun)
Ousmane Zongo '03, Diallo in like '99
I swear this shit happen like 90 times definitely
Definitely happens, like, plenty times
But it’s documented, like, 20 times
Well, Randolph Evans, well —

[Hook/Verse 3]
Randolph Evans was 15 in 1976
And a cop did two years for shooting him
One time, point blank in the head
And thirty years later exactly, on his wedding day
Four officers (in Queens) shot 50 bullets
And Sean Bell was, uh, dead
Veteran detective Oliver, two magazines, no remorse, geez, man!
Gescard Isnora
Basquiat ‘81, Irony of Negro police, man
Back in the day on the train Dap was G’in a Cremaster poster
Guyanese cop look like me (speedin’!)
Rolled up, plainclothes tucked, gun in the holster
Said not to do that. It bugged me out
They could look like me, too?
Y2K Grand Wizard Giuliani wasn’t done
Bad boys, bad boys took Patrick Dorismond
Plainclothes asking him where to cop tree
Shot him one time and didn’t have to flee
Well, yo, it was an accident, see
And once again the boys in blue got off scott free
(“Well, I’m white, sooo…I own this place?”)
No rap?
Alberta Spruill was 57 and didn’t leave her home
They tossed a concussion grenade into her living room
And scared her to death

I never felt safer
Its bugged out that they're supposed to make you feel safer
(“Well, I’m a white cop, so I own this… world?”)
Heems awn like em, Radio Raheem don't like em
(“Uh, yeah, well, I’m white, soooo…”)

And Michael Stewart who do art under the ground
Got found and laid down by
Eleven white cops that pound
-ed him for thirty-two minutes between arrest and delivery (they played with the paperwork!)
Alive and barely breathing, to dead in ‘83
Radio Raheem (Spike Lee!)
I don’t fuck with cops!

But...

https://i.imgur.com/yagYi1R.jpg

Your reminder that, just a few days ago the President of the United States:


Ordered a lawful, peaceful assembly brutally dispersed by federal agents
Did it because he wanted to film an AMV of himself walking unhindered to a church 5 minutes from the White House and holding a Bible upside down (the church staff were among those repressed)
Did so despite the fact that waiting half an hour for curfew to take effect would have averted any tension between the President and the presence of protesters, meaning the President of the United States chose to violently attack a peaceful assembly deliberately for its own sake
Declared protesters around the country terrorists and insurrectionists and vowed to subdue them with military force
Deployed Border Patrol paramilitaries (!) and Black Hawk helicopters as a show of force to intimidate protesters
Mentioned "protecting your 2nd Amendment rights." Now, this one deserves deconstruction, because it makes no sense in the context either of the speech he mentioned it in, nor the civil unrest he was addressing. Did he mean the 2nd Amendment rights of police and soldiers? Inapplicable, as they are already issued government guns. Did he mean the 2nd Amendment rights of protesters? Unlikely, as the implication would be for protesters to take up arms against a tyrannical government; Trump definitely wasn't saying that. The reference to the 2nd Amendment only makes sense as a call to communal violence by Trump-supporting private citizens against his enemies (here the protesters).


Among other things. One of the few escalations still remaining is toward targeted killings. There is genuinely not much room for deterioration before the US ceases to be a free-ish country. Here we see a very direct parallel to the overthrow of democratic governments in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc. and subsequent authoritarian yokes. This is literally how it happened there. The fascist whirlwind come to roost - poetic but not justice.

But some of the more hubristic Europeans need to be more self-aware if they're gloating. The past decade has repeatedly taught us that nowhere in this world is secure from the headwinds. There's nowhere to run but with each other.


Antidote
https://twitter.com/alloveranthony/status/1267948917553082370

I was glad to see that yesterday's protests in DC, at least, experienced minimal violence from the government. I can only hope mobilizing the National Guard will backfire on Republicans; these folks tend to be more disciplined, reflective, and representative of the country than common police. Pushing them might lead no further than August 1991. It's highly corrosive that the traditionally (pridefully so) non-partisan and civilian-led military should be put in a position at all to rebuff the Commander in Chief, but I have some confidence in their capacity to do so.



As the crowd (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/06/03/dc-protest-george-floyd-white-house/) thinned at Lafayette Square near the White House, some officers on the front line appeared to relax. An officer in a helmet and a shoulder patch that read “Special Forces” popped his head out from the second row and struck up a conversation with Joshua Rosen, 27, who was wearing a Jewish Yamuka and Tallit. Eventually, he asked: “Do you think we could see a prayer?”

Rosen nodded, then tried to remember the songs he had learned in his synagogue in Greenbelt, Md. He started with “Shalom Rav,” then sang “Lo Yisa Goy.” He paused when he couldn’t remember the exact line and another member of the crowd chimed in.

I wonder if there's video of the scene.




Have you read Night Watch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE-QNre6s0Q)?

No, but this quote is frequently reproduced around the Internet.


"It always embarrassed Samuel Vimes when civilians tried to speak to him in what they thought was ‘policeman’. If it came to that, he hated thinking of them as civilians. What was a policeman, if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge? But they tended to use the term these days as a way of describing people who were not policemen. It was a dangerous habit: once policemen stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers. “


<snip>

I've played this game. You just need to hide from the police for a few minutes.



And you think it would be a good idea to make the institution that put those cops on the front line the only recourse the people of minneapolis have in the face of violence? Thats what gun control would mean for minnesota and many other states.

Better start hoping that this time widespread reforms happen, I mean it didnt all the other times a national outrage descended into looting and arson. A lot of areas stayed so through a lot of different governers, mayors, police chiefs, presidents, but a chance's a chance that this time it'll be different, I guess.

When conservatives believe the extensive active application of force somewhere is necessary to maintain civic tranquility, they leave a lot of win-win arrangements on the table, all because they seemingly can't imagine the operation of a society that isn't organized around relationships of mutual aggression, dominance, obedience, and obligate hierarchy.

But we know that, once granted that systematic state repression is not an effective method (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/21/police-must-first-do-no-harm-how-one-nations-roughest-cities-is-reshaping-force-tactics/) to reducing crime and violence (https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2020/06/01/chaos-engulfed-philadelphia-peace-reigned-across-river-camden-george-floyd-riots-protest-unrest/5310378002/), often the evidence is that it is outright counterproductive. The only argument for such practices that are traumatic and dangerous to everyone on both sides of the metal therefore must be the psychic and vicarious pleasure of thinking someone is cracking someone's skull on your behalf.

This kind of thinking (often aspirational (!) among lower-status conservatives) would be upsettingly-blinkered and misanthropic - among other things - from an American jingoist, but it's stunning coming from someone who's from where he's from.

At this stage stripping police departments of money and resources may be the simpler and more effective strategy to get in with a shout in the short term than just continuing to struggle toward a comprehensive "reform" package (though that should remain a goal as well).


And once you've gotten your reformed better trained police, better hope that they dont get redirected from defending you into by whichever politician ends up with power over them.

There has been discussion in this thread establishing that police are notoriously-resistant (https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-police-union-offers-free-warrior-training-in-defiance-of-mayor-s-ban/509025622/) to the 'interference' of elected officials (where the goals of both do not come aligned). I can't identify a mechanism that emerges to - it's not even clear her what the imagined scenario is - make the police more reliant on the character of whatever mayor or governor occupies the chief executive out of reforms that successfully transform policing on the targeted properties.



Hooah I think that post is poisoned from the start. Cops are in no way disposable. Not only is the risk of dying on the job much lower than a myriad of other blue collar professions, but they have union protections even the French can't dream of. This is the siege mentality I am talking about. The chance of a cop dying on patrol is exceedingly low. However, if you implant that fear in them, it becomes a much worse situation for everyone.

It sounded like that's exactly what the commentator was highlighting.


This adversarial relationship its hell on interactions. Its why many cops buy into the thin blue line. The mental side of the job is the most taxing bit. Of course the mental side is the one we have totally ignored. An interaction with a cop is the most stressful part of most peoples day, maybe week. The cop is introduced to that stress over and over again. That is the part of the job that is the worst and that I don't envy.

Very good point that each interaction between a cop and non-cop is mentally and emotionally straining for both parties. Every interaction is another opportunity for violence, which is a point police abolitionists make when they refer to a "fundamental character" of policing.


I could see most patrolmen replaced with social workers and detectives, with a core reserve of armed response where needed. But I'm still holding out for a fully-convincing take on abolition. The basic problem is, people do at times need to be able to call someone for help, and despite all problems the police are generally the only ones to turn to (one of the commonly-stated problems is that very often they don't actually help or try to help!). The alternative is overwhelmingly either organized crime rackets (part of the reason for the persistence of gangs in minority neighborhoods is that they are underprotected), private security (good only for oligarchs really), or vigilante groups (a return to premodern quasi-legal systems based on communal sanction and rex talionis). Sometimes you need HELP, right now, perhaps with dangerous individuals or thefts, and this is in the lacuna between rehabilitation and prevention. Rehabilitation and prevention are overwhelmingly preferable on a systemic and macro level, but individuals in specific acute circumstances need HELP.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hooah I think that post is poisoned from the start. Cops are in no way disposable. Not only is the risk of dying on the job much lower than a myriad of other blue collar professions, but they have union protections even the French can't dream of. This is the siege mentality I am talking about. The chance of a cop dying on patrol is exceedingly low. However, if you implant that fear in them, it becomes a much worse situation for everyone.

This adversarial relationship its hell on interactions. Its why many cops buy into the thin blue line. The mental side of the job is the most taxing bit. Of course the mental side is the one we have totally ignored. An interaction with a cop is the most stressful part of most peoples day, maybe week. The cop is introduced to that stress over and over again. That is the part of the job that is the worst and that I don't envy.

I don't really have answers so I don't want to come off as dogging your friend but we need to asses the level of danger in good faith.

If I recall correctly, being a Taxi driver is more deadly than being a police officer.

[Hooahguy]

As Monty said, the point was that their mentality was one of being disposable, under siege, thin blue line, etc. And I think the mentality is what harms the profession more than anything.

[Pannonian]

South, do you know anything about this (https://twitter.com/DavidFr31601156/status/1268594712954404867)? It's supposed to have happened in Austin on 1st June.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have been considering the idea of a committee of vigilance system in our urban areas for a few days now. Why, despite its known problems? Because the communities in question do not trust/support/want police. Can they police themselves better? They know who is to be trusted and whose story is what -- and they mostly know who is full of it. I wonder how much worse it could be than the extant system... I have often claimed to be a fan of government that is as minimal and localized as possible. So I have trouble supporting a police force concept as practiced -- especially since that practice is functionally racist oppression all too often.

I think maybe moving to a UK model -- no guns except for specialist backup -- may have greater utility despite (because of?) the 290 million firearms we collectively own. Policing as is IS stressful to all parties involved, and we have militarized policing more in the last 40 years of our War on Drugs than ever before. And that has worked so well for us...:rolleyes:

I am stressed, embarrassed, and ashamed -- this has not been a good couple of weeks.

On the other hand, the gym is back open and I haven't been actively abused for being one of the <10% of patrons working out while masked (and I was one of those nudniks who re-racked weights and cleaned surfaces after use even before COVID, so I have only had to add wiping down before use).

[Montmorency]

I have been considering the idea of a committee of vigilance system in our urban areas for a few days now. Why, despite its known problems? Because the communities in question do not trust/support/want police. Can they police themselves better? They know who is to be trusted and whose story is what -- and they mostly know who is full of it. I wonder how much worse it could be than the extant system... I have often claimed to be a fan of government that is as minimal and localized as possible. So I have trouble supporting a police force concept as practiced -- especially since that practice is functionally racist oppression all too often.

The state can and should be there to help! From social work to intervention/mediation teams to restorative justice.

There's no need to choose between Wild West and Judge Dredd.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The state can and should be there to help! From social work to intervention/mediation teams to restorative justice.

There's no need to choose between Wild West and Judge Dredd.

Fair Point. I am talking more along the lines of each ward of a city handles justice for that local community -- a bit more brehon than judge Dredd in my head at least. Not sure how in practice.

[Strike For The South]

South, do you know anything about this (https://twitter.com/DavidFr31601156/status/1268594712954404867)? It's supposed to have happened in Austin on 1st June.

A man was abused by police and they then abused the people trying to get him medical attention. The video is particularly heinous because the protesters were told to bring him the station. There are 000s of videos like this twitter, running the gambit of unacceptable. It is amazing to see a total breakdown among the LEOs. They are proving the protestors points in real time. Never before have a seen a group of people so totally unconcerned with image.


If I recall correctly, being a Taxi driver is more deadly than being a police officer.

They are roughly equal, of course no one thanks taxi drivers nor do taxi drivers have the ability to ruin your life. Well, I suppose they could drive off the road.


I could see most patrolmen replaced with social workers and detectives, with a core reserve of armed response where needed. But I'm still holding out for a fully-convincing take on abolition. The basic problem is, people do at times need to be able to call someone for help, and despite all problems the police are generally the only ones to turn to (one of the commonly-stated problems is that very often they don't actually help or try to help!). The alternative is overwhelmingly either organized crime rackets (part of the reason for the persistence of gangs in minority neighborhoods is that they are underprotected), private security (good only for oligarchs really), or vigilante groups (a return to premodern quasi-legal systems based on communal sanction and rex talionis). Sometimes you need HELP, right now, perhaps with dangerous individuals or thefts, and this is in the lacuna between rehabilitation and prevention. Rehabilitation and prevention are overwhelmingly preferable on a systemic and macro level, but individuals in specific acute circumstances need HELP.




Abolition means different things to different people in different times. The most popular, but also most critiqued list of changes I have seen is the "8 can't wait" campaign. I really thought body cameras would make a difference but here we are.

[ReluctantSamurai]

This sez it all about America:

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1269048818739212288

Dead African-Americans=Market Gains.

:shame:

[Pannonian]

A man was abused by police and they then abused the people trying to get him medical attention. The video is particularly heinous because the protesters were told to bring him the station. There are 000s of videos like this twitter, running the gambit of unacceptable. It is amazing to see a total breakdown among the LEOs. They are proving the protestors points in real time. Never before have a seen a group of people so totally unconcerned with image.


The Buffalo officers might take the cake so far. Two officers push a 75 year old over who cracks his head. The two are suspended, and 50-odd officers strike in their support. Unprovoked, elderly victim who is severely injured, caught on camera, and dozens of officers withdraw their services in support of the culprits after a day's consideration. It's not even misconduct in the heat of the moment, as the direct culprits are palpably guilty with clear evidence, and the supporting officers have had a day to think about their action.

[Montmorency]

Note #253: Police are fascist paramilitaries, here seen coordinating with wannabe fascist paramilitaries.
https://twitter.com/Satellit3Heart/status/1268863536299675648


Abolition means different things to different people in different times. The most popular, but also most critiqued list of changes I have seen is the "8 can't wait" campaign. I really thought body cameras would make a difference but here we are.

Just to be clear, the 8 Can't Wait list promotes reform measures, not abolition in any sense.

I really wish I could find it, but a few days ago I saw a table of cities according to uptake of these reforms. I swear NYC had at least half of them; they sound good but it seems mere procedural reforms will never be enough... Yeah, remember body cams? So Org 2013.


The Buffalo officers might take the cake so far. Two officers push a 75 year old over who cracks his head. The two are suspended, and 50-odd officers strike in their support. Unprovoked, elderly victim who is severely injured, caught on camera, and dozens of officers withdraw their services in support of the culprits after a day's consideration. It's not even misconduct in the heat of the moment, as the direct culprits are palpably guilty with clear evidence, and the supporting officers have had a day to think about their action.

Some of what I've been posting is worse (and I've seen worse than I've posted).

If this is how a couple dozen cops treat a single old white man in a suit quietly and calmly approaching them, untrammeled by any crowd or anything, imagine...

[Pannonian]

Some of what I've been posting is worse (and I've seen worse than I've posted).

If this is how a couple dozen cops treat a single old white man in a suit quietly and calmly approaching them, untrammeled by any crowd or anything, imagine...

I don't mean worst as in viciousness. I mean worst as in stupidity. They've seen the fellow officers suspended after their misbehaviour was caught quite clearly on camera ("He's bleeding from his ear"). They've had a day to think about it. And they've decided as a group to back these two by withdrawing their services. As Strike says, have you seen a group of people so utterly unconcerned with image?

[Montmorency]

I don't mean worst as in viciousness. I mean worst as in stupidity. They've seen the fellow officers suspended after their misbehaviour was caught quite clearly on camera ("He's bleeding from his ear"). They've had a day to think about it. And they've decided as a group to back these two by withdrawing their services. As Strike says, have you seen a group of people so utterly unconcerned with image?

American police are extraordinarily entitled and pigheaded (Sheepdogs unite!), and will almost always protest, strike, or riot to uphold group solidarity and privilege. It's what they call the "thin blue line," as seen in the photo I posted of them raising their flag in place of the American flag. On government property.

NYPD for example are notorious for wielding police protest to browbeat mayors (see the Dinkins riot, patrolmen turning their backs on de Blasio).


EDIT:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faeW6Z3hQ2w

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rudys-racist-rants-nypd-history-lesson


It was one of the biggest riots in New York City history.

As many as 10,000 demonstrators blocked traffic in downtown Manhattan on Sept. 16, 1992. Reporters and innocent bystanders were violently assaulted by the mob as thousands of dollars in private property was destroyed in multiple acts of vandalism. The protesters stormed up the steps of City Hall, occupying the building. They then streamed onto the Brooklyn Bridge, where they blocked traffic in both directions, jumping on the cars of trapped, terrified motorists. Many of the protestors were carrying guns and openly drinking alcohol.

Yet the uniformed police present did little to stop them. Why? Because the rioters were nearly all white, off‐​duty NYPD officers. They were participating in a Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association demonstration against Mayor David Dinkins’ call for a Civilian Complaint Review Board and his creation earlier that year of the Mollen Commission, formed to investigate widespread allegations of misconduct within the NYPD.

:no:

[Hooahguy]

Just to be clear, the 8 Can't Wait list promotes reform measures, not abolition in any sense.

I really wish I could find it, but a few days ago I saw a table of cities according to uptake of these reforms. I swear NYC had at least half of them; they sound good but it seems mere procedural reforms will never be enough... Yeah, remember body cams? So Org 2013.



You probably didnt mean this, but 8 Cant Wait website (https://8cantwait.org/)has a drop-down list of cities and if they have already adopted any of the reforms. But I think it definitely has a lot to do with the culture and not just a list of reforms. Like with body cams, if the officers turn them off then its no good, like what happened when David McAtee was killed.

Interestingly enough at least here in DC its the federal police who were being abusive. The regular city cops have actually been decent to the protesters, at least according to some friends who have been protesting every day. Havent heard of any arrests being made either in the past couple of days which is good and there hasnt been a curfew the past couple days either. I plan on attending the various protests tomorrow so I will report back with pics. DC is expecting huge numbers so it will definitely be interesting. I did manage to get a hold of a couple n95 masks at my local store so at least I will be safe since I am very well aware that tomorrow will likely be a viral hotbed.

[Strike For The South]

The Buffalo officers might take the cake so far. Two officers push a 75 year old over who cracks his head. The two are suspended, and 50-odd officers strike in their support. Unprovoked, elderly victim who is severely injured, caught on camera, and dozens of officers withdraw their services in support of the culprits after a day's consideration. It's not even misconduct in the heat of the moment, as the direct culprits are palpably guilty with clear evidence, and the supporting officers have had a day to think about their action.
The man was returning a helmet too. Not that it matters what he was doing but ostensibly he was there to help!


Note #253: Police are fascist paramilitaries, here seen coordinating with wannabe fascist paramilitaries.
https://twitter.com/Satellit3Heart/status/1268863536299675648
Someone smarter than us, I'm sure, has figured out the exact moment when these people realized it be easier to co-op the police rather than fight them. Are you old enough to remember the 90s? Or are we both working off documentaries and books?


Just to be clear, the 8 Can't Wait list promotes reform measures, not abolition in any sense.

True, but it is also the case that these are whats being picked up by the proverbial "MSM"


I really wish I could find it, but a few days ago I saw a table of cities according to uptake of these reforms. I swear NYC had at least half of them; they sound good but it seems mere procedural reforms will never be enough... Yeah, remember body cams? So Org 2013.

Yea, most large cities have a majority of these things implemented. I still think bodycameras work they just have to be on. It is really telling how often their power goes missing.



Some of what I've been posting is worse (and I've seen worse than I've posted).

If this is how a couple dozen cops treat a single old white man in a suit quietly and calmly approaching them, untrammeled by any crowd or anything, imagine...

Breanna Taylors killers have escaped any sort of punishment for no knock raid on a supposed non violent offender they already had in custody. One does not have to imagine very far.

[Montmorency]

Interestingly enough at least here in DC its the federal police who were being abusive. The regular city cops have actually been decent to the protesters, at least according to some friends who have been protesting every day. Havent heard of any arrests being made either in the past couple of days which is good and there hasnt been a curfew the past couple days either.

Hmm... I know feds broke up the Lafayette gathering for the infamous photo-op, but I thought local police were behind the organic instances I was seeing. Maybe I wasn't looking carefully.

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-leaked-document-reveals-details-of-federal-law-enforcement-patrolling-washington-amid-protests-154138680.html

This week, besides the National Guards, Trump has assembled a motley crew of hundreds of ICE, CBP, TSA, Coast Guard, correctional officers (prison guards), and others. If McNamara had his Morons, these must be Trump's ---


I plan on attending the various protests tomorrow so I will report back with pics. DC is expecting huge numbers so it will definitely be interesting. I did manage to get a hold of a couple n95 masks at my local store so at least I will be safe since I am very well aware that tomorrow will likely be a viral hotbed.

If the police stampede, just kind of shuffle out of the way. Don't speak or yell, maintain a neutral facial expression, and don't move. They can't see you if you don't move.


Someone smarter than us, I'm sure, has figured out the exact moment when these people realized it be easier to co-op the police rather than fight them. Are you old enough to remember the 90s? Or are we both working off documentaries and books?

I don't remember much of the 90s (certainly not the major federal police actions of Clinton's A-term), but you might be interested in the work of one Robert Evans in the development of the fringe right in the late 20th century.


I still think bodycameras work they just have to be on. It is really telling how often their power goes missing.

The problem with body cams is that even when they work, if the video doesn't get out to the public there is no pressure to resolve the incident. Even when the video does get out, nevertheless nothing usually happens! The events of the past week should definitively prove that the police in general don't GAF how we see them behave (though they might stop you from recording personally). All the sophisticated PC prevarications learned by chiefs and their media managers over the past decades have not even been a strategy for deflection, but a superfluous polite facade for the stone-old maxim that "the strong do what they can."

[Hooahguy]

Hmm... I know feds broke up the Lafayette gathering for the infamous photo-op, but I thought local police were behind the organic instances I was seeing. Maybe I wasn't looking carefully.

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-leaked-document-reveals-details-of-federal-law-enforcement-patrolling-washington-amid-protests-154138680.html

This week, besides the National Guards, Trump has assembled a motley crew of hundreds of ICE, CBP, TSA, Coast Guard, correctional officers (prison guards), and others. If McNamara had his Morons, these must be Trump's ---
The videos I saw looked like they were federal troops since to my knowledge, DC police dont carry round riot shields (they carry rectangular ones) and in the videos of police brutality, such as with the journalists, it was cops with round shields. I might have missed some videos though and I dont doubt that there were some instances of DC police beating protesters. But DC is very used to protests throughout history so Im not surprised that DC is handling it better than others.


If the police stampede, just kind of shuffle out of the way. Don't speak or yell, maintain a neutral facial expression, and don't move. They can't see you if you don't move.
:laugh4:

But in all seriousness I am not anticipating any issues except around the White House. A huge swath of downtown DC is being shut to vehicle traffic and the mayor's office seems to be in close coordination with the protest organizers. But I guess we will see. Just in case though I am bringing protective eyeglasses because I have seen too many pictures of people with eye injuries from nonlethal rounds, and how would I mod this forum if I lost my eyesight? :yes:

[ReluctantSamurai]

What are the odds that the war of words between the far right & the far left escalates to a shooting war?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/06/rightwing-vigilante-armed-antifa-protests


But in the Idaho city of Coeur d’Alene groups of 30-50 men armed with semi-automatic weapons have occupied downtown streets on successive evenings this week, guarding against supposed busloads of radical leftists rumored to traveling from cities such as Spokane or Seattle, according to local residents and social media materials obtained by the Guardian.


In one speech, the Tuolumne county committee chair of the State of Jefferson, David Titchenal, instructs the crowd to organize in order to provide a “visual deterrent to potential looters and rioters, who may not be from Tuolumne county”. He should they should take up firing positions on top of buildings and become “roof rednecks”.

Roof Rednecks?:inquisitive:

And then to be endorsed by local LEO:


Later, the crowd was addressed by Sonora chief of police, Turu VanderWiel. While urging people not to attend armed, VanderWiel appeared to endorse the plan for vigilante action, saying in a video recorded at the event, “as for coming out, I very much appreciate it. Extra eyes, extra bodies, standing together as a community.”

Wasn't that long ago that here in Michigan, armed anti-lockdown protesters occupied the state legislature in Lansing, followed by black counter-protesters doing much the same.

And heeeere we go.......:smg::hmg:

[ReluctantSamurai]

I have been considering the idea of a committee of vigilance system in our urban areas for a few days now. Why, despite its known problems? Because the communities in question do not trust/support/want police. Can they police themselves better? They know who is to be trusted and whose story is what -- and they mostly know who is full of it. I wonder how much worse it could be than the extant system... I have often claimed to be a fan of government that is as minimal and localized as possible. So I have trouble supporting a police force concept as practiced -- especially since that practice is functionally racist oppression all too often.

I have doubts about that:inquisitive: What I fear about 'a committee of vigilance' is that "Billy Bob" who has a relative(s) or friends on said committee, takes issue with his neighbor for some reason, and said committee begins making life difficult for this neighbor for no other reason than the "good-old-boy" mentality so prevalent here. With so much of the middle area (ie. non-partisan) of US society leaving to join the right or the left, how would oversight of such a committee be accomplished?

[If anyone has any doubts as to the challenges for a 'committee of vigilance' see my prior post-----Roof Rednecks will become all too common, IMHO]


But I guess we will see. Just in case though I am bringing protective eyeglasses because I have seen too many pictures of people with eye injuries from nonlethal rounds, and how would I mod this forum if I lost my eyesight?

Stay safe.

[Hooahguy]

Today was pretty incredible to witness. There had to have been tens of thousands of people protesting today in DC, if not in the hundreds of thousands. Started at noon at the Lincoln Memorial, marched up to Capitol Hill to protest in front of the Dirsken Senate Building, and then marched back down to the White House. Saw no violence or tension whatsoever, in fact I didnt see many cops at all, just the occasional cop cars blocking off various streets. So I guess I brought protective eyeglasses for no reason. The biggest issue was the heat, as it was in the 90's and it really takes a toll on you with a mask on. Spent about 4 hours at the protest before the heat was getting to me and called it a day.

Protesters as far as the eye can see both ways:
23799

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Today was pretty incredible to witness. There had to have been tens of thousands of people protesting today in DC, if not in the hundreds of thousands. Started at noon at the Lincoln Memorial, marched up to Capitol Hill to protest in front of the Dirsken Senate Building, and then marched back down to the White House. Saw no violence or tension whatsoever, in fact I didnt see many cops at all, just the occasional cop cars blocking off various streets. So I guess I brought protective eyeglasses for no reason. The biggest issue was the heat, as it was in the 90's and it really takes a toll on you with a mask on. Spent about 4 hours at the protest before the heat was getting to me and called it a day.

Protesters as far as the eye can see both ways:
23799

Having been jogging with a mask on for all of April and much of May, I can confirm that. You do NOT get the same flow of air.

[Hooahguy]

The vast majority of people I saw today were wearing masks, but I am still going to get tested for coronavirus this week.

[Montmorency]

Attorney General William Barr says law enforcement officers were already moving to push back protesters from a park in front of the White House when he arrived there Monday evening, and he says he did not give a command to disperse the crowd, though he supported the decision.
[...]
“I’m not involved in giving tactical commands like that,” he said. “I was frustrated and I was also worried that as the crowd grew, it was going to be harder and harder to do. So my attitude was get it done, but I didn’t say, ‘Go do it.’”

https://i.imgur.com/EmkTN3M.jpg




Hey Pannonian, remember those Buffalo cops? Here is a report (https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/exclusive-two-buffalo-police-ert-members-say-resignation-was-not-in-solidarity-with-suspended-officers) that at least some claim they were reacting to the union's refusal to fund legal fees for the police accused of misconduct related to the protests.


The officers we spoke with said the Buffalo Police Benevolent Association’s statement asserting all 57 officers resigned from ERT in a "show of support” with the two officers that were suspended without pay is not true.

“I don’t understand why the union said it’s a thing of solidarity. I think it sends the wrong message that ‘we’re backing our own’ and that’s not the case,” said one officer with whom we spoke.

“We quit because our union said [they] aren’t legally backing us anymore. So why would we stand on a line for the City with no legal backing if something [were to] happen? Has nothing to do with us supporting,” said another.

A little of Column A, a little of Column B perhaps.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1269322620316442625

At a time when hundreds of thousands of public sector workers have lost their jobs due to the recession, this may be the moment to reprioritize personnel expenditures...

Therefore...


Ed Zitron (https://twitter.com/edzitron/status/1268232028387856385)
@edzitron
The NYPD is reporting that Antifa has painted convincing-looking tunnels on walls to trick New York's Finest into running into them at high speed

On the other hand, a horrific scene in Atlanta where a massive mob of armed BLACK brigands VAPORIZE an officer of the law with a wall of gunfire!
[Graphic content]
https://twitter.com/ChefAnthonyDC/status/1268304059716571138



And heeeere we go.......:smg::hmg:

Militias (Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, et al.) in the Unadministered Tribal Zones have been mobilizing to counter the expected invasion of Antifa supersoldiers for years. Here's an example (http://www.citypages.com/news/armed-conspiracy-group-will-defend-republicans-at-minneapolis-trump-rally/562562061). They have routinely found themselves disappointed (granted that this may be the wrong word). It's when they venture afield that we have a problem. Although.....

https://www.inquirer.com/news/fishtown-george-floyd-protests-philadelphia-bats-hammers-20200602.html

Very cool.

[Montmorency]

I couldn't attend, but there was a decent-sized protest today within a mile of my residence. Someone tell me if this checks out, but scanning various media I get the impression that various people around the country have registered something of the circumstances we're in - such that there's been far less police brutality lately than there was a week ago.

To consolidate some COVID news, NYC will finally enter Phase I of reopening, nearly 3 months after the lockdown began. (Interesting to see how the hospitalization/death rate will be affected by late June. Evidence has accumulated that outdoor contact should be fairly low-risk for transmission, so if mass outdoor gatherings also turn out not to be spreader events in the way indoor gatherings are - I suppose we all just take our business and schooling outdoors? On the other hand, the protests are very disproportionately youthful, so those demographics will skew any ramifications.)

Meanwhile, New York has again made a quantum leap in testing. Pushing past 60K tests daily since the end of May, running even with California again and maintaining a cumulative gap of over 100K. Not this time, after all. Not this time.

[Hooahguy]

Also Mitt Romney attended one of the BLM marches today and said as much on his Twitter (https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1269758561720156160?s=20). Though considering that his dad was a big civil right movement supporter its not entirely surprising.

But things are definitely changing. Minneapolis is apparently going to dismantle (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52960227) its police force in favor of community based strategies. I'm intrigued how this will play out, because if it works it could be a model for the rest of the country.

[drone]

To consolidate some COVID news...

Relevant to our benevolent overlord, some of the anonymous "police" patrolling DC have been identified as Federal Bureau of Prison guards from Texas, both Beaumont and Three Rivers. And as we all know, meatpacking plants, elder care facilities, and prisons are the Covid-19 hotspots, including the federal prison at Beaumont where both guards and prisoners have tested positive. So raise your glasses to Bill Barr, Attorney General and devout Nurgle cultist! :thumbsup:

[Hooahguy]

The first of what will likely be many police reform bills (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52969375) is out.


The Justice in Policing Act of 2020 was introduced on Monday by top Democratic lawmakers House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, black senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker and members of the Congressional Black Caucus....


The bill forces federal police to use body and dashboard cameras, ban chokeholds, eliminate unannounced police raids known as "no-knock warrants", make it easier to hold police liable for civil rights violations and calls for federal funds to be withheld from local police forces who do not make similar reforms.
...

The bill makes lynching a federal crime, limits the sale of military weapons to the police and gives the Department of Justice the authority to investigate state and local police for evidence of department-wide bias or misconduct.


It would also create a "national police misconduct registry" - a database of complaints against police.

I think this is a very good start, however it remains to be seen if McConnell will even bother bringing it up for a vote. The article says that the Republicans are considering drafting their own bill but knowing them it will be something very pro-police so really it would be dead upon arrival.

[Montmorency]

Relevant to the point about police riots being the primary source of violence on American streets lately, this study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14742837.2017.1381592) of late-20th c. protests found that when the protests were themed on police violence, the police response tended to be more present and more repressive.

Passes the smell test these days.


From June 7:

British activists roll a statue of Edward Colston into a river. [VIDEO]
https://twitter.com/boringdystopian/status/1269643323532292096

"A crowd has climbed onto the statue of colonial King Léopold II in #Brussels chanting “murderer” and waving the flag of the Democratic Republic of Congo where his atrocities took place."
https://twitter.com/jackeparrock/status/1269656961693421568 [VIDEO]

Like what I said, don't rest on your laurels Euroweenies.


In COVID news, New Zealand declares SARS-2 eradicated 2.5 weeks since the last identified new case, and lifts the lockdown. I would have waited at least another week just to be safe, but OK. The epicenters of the pandemic are now Brazil, Russia, Iran, India, and many of their respective neighbors. Hits ya like a bag of brics.

Also, re: COVID and NHS. My previous tangential comments referencing the NHS and capacity or occupancy were horribly naive. I just learned that a major NHS controversy has been the continual reduction of spare capacity over decades. By the beginning of the pandemic, the NHS was operating at 90% capacity as the normal state of things. Did an Orgah previously disclose that and I just missed it? Anyway, that's pretty terrible.



The first of what will likely be many police reform bills (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52969375) is out.

I think this is a very good start, however it remains to be seen if McConnell will even bother bringing it up for a vote. The article says that the Republicans are considering drafting their own bill but knowing them it will be something very pro-police so really it would be dead upon arrival.

Like with the other criminal justice reform in 2018, this would be a very first step if passed. Though of course it will never leave the House. What are some concrete ways to leverage federal authority and incentives over state and local policing?

I'll have to dive into what precisely the changes to qualified immunity are.

[Pannonian]

Relevant to the point about police riots being the primary source of violence on American streets lately, this study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14742837.2017.1381592) of late-20th c. protests found that when the protests were themed on police violence, the police response tended to be more present and more repressive.

Passes the smell test these days.


From June 7:

British activists roll a statue of Edward Colston into a river. [VIDEO]
https://twitter.com/boringdystopian/status/1269643323532292096

"A crowd has climbed onto the statue of colonial King Léopold II in #Brussels chanting “murderer” and waving the flag of the Democratic Republic of Congo where his atrocities took place."
https://twitter.com/jackeparrock/status/1269656961693421568 [VIDEO]

Like what I said, don't rest on your laurels Euroweenies.


In COVID news, New Zealand declares SARS-2 eradicated 2.5 weeks since the last identified new case, and lifts the lockdown. I would have waited at least another week just to be safe, but OK. The epicenters of the pandemic are now Brazil, Russia, Iran, India, and many of their respective neighbors. Hits ya like a bag of brics.

Also, re: COVID and NHS. My previous tangential comments referencing the NHS and capacity or occupancy were horribly naive. I just learned that a major NHS controversy has been the continual reduction of spare capacity over decades. By the beginning of the pandemic, the NHS was operating at 90% capacity as the normal state of things. Did an Orgah previously disclose that and I just missed it? Anyway, that's pretty terrible.

It's part of the ideological reduction of state expenditure to a pre-determined level of GDP that a certain Orgah has been enthusiastic about. The economist that said Orgah has been trumpeting has talked about a number of things that will happen as a result of that. We're just seeing what happens when the real world collides with that mentality.

[Montmorency]

Are we doing this again?

‘Welcome to Free Capitol Hill’ — Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone forms around emptied East Precinct (https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2020/06/welcome-to-free-capitol-hill-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-forms-around-emptied-east-precinct/) [Seattle]

[Montmorency]

Ongoing protests, tear gas, in France over stuff.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/paris-protests-racism-police-brutality/1871332
https://www.voanews.com/europe/anger-activism-grow-over-police-abuse-amid-french-lockdown


Under France's strictest virus lockdown measures, from March 17-May 11, the government restricted people's movements to a kilometer (half-mile) around their homes and required that anyone leaving their homes carry a signed paper stating why. Punishments included fines starting at 135 euros (about $150), or even prison.

On the first day punishments were doled out, 10% of the fines given in the entire country were given in the region of Seine-Saint-Denis on Paris' northern edge, where unemployment is twice the national average, almost one person out of three is an immigrant, and many others are the descendants of immigrants.

Government officials defended the fines as necessary to fight the virus in a region with especially high infection rates. [Why did this region have especially high infection rates? I've seen this movie before. :eyebrows:]

But police union leader Yves Lefebvre lamented that the lockdown measures "again made the police a repressive tool."

"Public services have deserted these neighborhoods," and police are the only presence left, which "necessarily leads to confrontation," he said.


And I guess there are protests in Brazil for similar reasons. Woooo.
https://www.ft.com/content/3d2f6986-a981-11ea-a766-7c300513fe47

It would be for the best if global unrest synergizes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/world/george-floyd-global-protests.html

https://i.imgur.com/8OUSfct.png

[Greyblades]

One man is left fighting for his life after rioters found another reason why tearing down statues is a stupid thing to do. (https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/11/protester-critically-injured-statue-was-helping-topple-landed-head-12838502/)

[Hooahguy]

Something which I havent seen much coverage of are the two hangings (https://www.vvng.com/sheriffs-department-says-foul-play-not-suspected-after-black-man-found-hanging-in-tree-near-victorville-city-library/) of Black men in California, both from trees. Both happened in the relative vicinity of each other. The police arent saying foul play but the families are saying that something is off and are pressing for more investigating, especially with the current racial tensions.

And then theres the resignation (https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/atlanta-police-shooting-death-rayshard-brooks-roils-city/7ju3cAcaLfolTbocqLfArN/) of the Atlanta police chief after police killed a man fleeing arrest after sleeping at a Wendy's drive-through. This case is a more complicated as the suspect was in an altercation with the cops and then was killed while pointing a taser at the cops. Whether deadly force was appropriate, well thats harder to determine, but I think its also appropriate to discuss that maybe Rayshard Brooks decided to fight and run because he knew that complying wouldn’t necessarily guarantee his safety.

[Pannonian]

Man jailed for urinating at PC Keith Palmer memorial during protest (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53051096)


Andrew Banks, 28, of Stansted, Essex, was photographed during Saturday's right-wing protests in London.

He was sentenced to 14 days in custody, after pleading guilty to outraging public decency at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

...

Prosecutor Michael Mallon said Banks, a Tottenham Hotspur fan, was in central London to "protect statues", but admitted he did not know which statues.

He was said to have drunk 16 pints during Friday night into Saturday morning, and had not been to sleep.

[Montmorency]

I posted some hints of evolving civil-military relations under Trump, but it has certainly been... interesting to see so many retired and serving military, as well as ranking officials and leaders, denounce or deprecate Trump since the Lafayette Park debacle. I remind you that polling had Trump underwater with active duty personnel, including officers even before the pandemic! He was less popular with officers than with the general population, and the officer class (https://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Golby-IUS.pdf) has been famously, overwhelmingly Republican forever!


Polling so far has been firmly pro-Black Lives Matter, to the point where in one poll a majority of respondents viewed the targeted arson of a police precinct building as at least somewhat justified. Here is a more extensive Pew study (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/06/12/amid-protests-majorities-across-racial-and-ethnic-groups-express-support-for-the-black-lives-matter-movement/), usually benchmarks. Some highlights:


31% of white adults strongly support BLM, with a similar proportion somewhat supporting it
40% of Republicans at least somewhat support BLM
Two-thirds of Americans have had conversations about race with friends and family recently (of course this would also include the 'exterminate the brutes' type of exchanges that I've been party to)
6% of polled adults claim to have attended a protest or rally about racial issues recently; if true this makes the 2020 BLM protest wave the biggest in American history (the other 4 biggest protest movements in American history have all taken place within the past 3.5 years.........)



Six-in-ten Americans say the president has been delivering the wrong message to the country in response to these protests. Asked about Trump’s handling of race relations more generally, about half (48%) say he has made race relations worse; 19% say he has made progress toward improving race relations, 19% say he has tried but failed to make progress and 12% say the president hasn’t addressed the issue.


In San Francisco (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/san-francisco-police-reforms-stop-response-noncriminal-calls): Police will be replaced with professional mediators in responding to civil complaints or disturbances. Among other proposals. The seeming enthusiasm of the local police union and Chamber of Commerce toward the proposals leaves me apprehensive though. San Jose, San Francisco, and LA police unions activating the spillway (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/3-big-California-police-unions-unveil-national-15339228.php)...

So the Minneapolis City Council passed a resolution to dissolve their police department and replace it with a "community-led public safety system." Of course, this just initiates a year-long process to figure out what that means, how to implement it, and how to proceed.

It's tough to defend beat cops when you know, well, all the racism and fascism, but also their departments' dire clearance rates for criminal incidents and their near-total uselessness for stopping crimes in progress. And then there's this.
https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/06/11/police-lounged-napped-in-congressmans-office-as-looters-destroyed-local-businesses-video-shows/


A group of Chicago Police officers entered Rep. Bobby Rush’s closed Englewood office and lounged, napped and made popcorn, doing nothing while looters destroyed South Side businesses nearby, video shows.

Rush, whose office is at 55th Street and South Wentworth Avenue, said he got a call his office had been burglarized during the widespread looting and vandalism that took place throughout the city early June 1.

After viewing security footage, Rush’s staff saw a group of about eight uniformed police officers enter the office while looting took place nearby. The officers napped, made popcorn and coffee, played on their phones and generally lounged, the congressman said.

At one point, as many as 13 officers — including three supervisors — were in the office relaxing, officials said. Officers were in the office for four to five hours.

At the same time, nearby businesses were looted and burned down. More than a dozen people were killed throughout the city that night.

It's well-known that police have and do permit property destruction as a gesture of petty vindictiveness toward their municipalities during protests, but it only serves to further undermine the case for suffering them.



And then theres the resignation (https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/atlanta-police-shooting-death-rayshard-brooks-roils-city/7ju3cAcaLfolTbocqLfArN/) of the Atlanta police chief after police killed a man fleeing arrest after sleeping at a Wendy's drive-through. This case is a more complicated as the suspect was in an altercation with the cops and then was killed while pointing a taser at the cops. Whether deadly force was appropriate, well thats harder to determine, but I think its also appropriate to discuss that maybe Rayshard Brooks decided to fight and run because he knew that complying wouldn’t necessarily guarantee his safety.

Let's lay out the incident:
https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/man-shot-killed-atlanta-police-wendy-drive-thru/rUUFN6yfvgsevgIc2Q7ZkJ/


The incident began about 10:30 p.m. outside the fast food chain on University Avenue, GBI spokeswoman Nelly Miles said. Officers were called to the restaurant after receiving a complaint about a man asleep in his vehicle, which forced other customers to go around his car to get their food at the window.

Police should not be called in these circumstances.


The man, Atlanta resident Rayshard Brooks, was given a field sobriety test, which he reportedly failed, according to the GBI. After failing the test, the officers attempted to place the male subject into custody,” Miles said.

Assuming the man was sleeping off alcohol, police should not have attempted to arrest him. At most, there could have been cause to have the vehicle towed.


“During the arrest, the male subject resisted and a struggle ensued. The officer deployed a Taser.”

The officers should have stopped struggling, having initiated the struggle.


According to police, Brooks managed to take the Taser away from the officer before being shot. He was taken to the hospital where he later died, Miles said. Cellphone video captured by a Wendy's customer appears to show two officers struggling with Brooks in the parking lot. He appeared to be running away from them when he was fatally shot. BI Director Vic Reynolds said surveillance footage from the Wendy’s appeared to show Brooks turn toward the police and attempt to fire the Taser as he ran away. That’s when the officer chasing Brooks pulled out his gun and shot him, authorities said.

If it is true that the suspect attempted to use the taser on pursuing officers while fleeing, and that this could justify immediate force escalation by the police (two bullets in the back), then surely the suspect was quite right to be fleeing officers' use of taser against his person - as would any suspect.

In reality there was not even a scintilla of cause for lethal force here. If you have the (allegedly inebriated) suspect's vehicle, you have his registration information and (likely primary) conveyance. If the suspect escapes police on the scene, they can in almost all cases be subsequently apprehended at leisure.

The intervention of the police was at least inappropriate at every step of the way. Many cops are willing and eager to sacrifice blue lives in exchange for opportunities to degrade and end black lives. Blue Lives Matter, what a cynical crock.

Modern police are THE dangerous servant and fearful master, so one would think reining then could slot into a bipartisan movement, but there have always been far more misarchists than "small-government" conservatives. Fusionism (significant overlap with neoconservatism) was ultimately the same shit btw, though the Republican base never had as much specific concern with the interests of the transnational elite as fusionists did.




Saturday's right-wing protests in London.

Assembly of the master race.


Hundreds (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/europe/protests-london-far-right-gbr-intl/index.html) of mostly middle-aged white men, many shirtless or clutching beers, gathered in Parliament Square, where video showed a small number of right-wing protesters throwing objects at a line of police, some of whom responded with batons.
f

[Montmorency]

Boojahid was the killer, and an infiltrator to boot. To my knowledge the first killing associated with the creed.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/airman-charged-killing-federal-officer-during-george-floyd-protests-california-n1231187


An Air Force sergeant who was arrested in the fatal ambush of a Santa Cruz County deputy was charged Tuesday in connection with the killing of a federal security officer during George Floyd protests in Oakland last month, authorities said.

Staff Sgt. Steven Carrillo, 32, was charged with murder and attempted murder in the killing of federal officer Dave Patrick Underwood, 53.

Underwood was one of two officers who were shot May 29 while guarding the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building. The other officer was critically wounded in the drive-by attack. Both were members of Homeland Security's Federal Protective Service.

Authorities said Carrillo and a second man traveled to Oakland with the intent to kill police and believed the large demonstrations spurred by the death of Floyd in Minneapolis — which they were not a part of — would help them get away it.

"They came to Oakland to kill cops," said John Bennett, special agent in charge of the San Francisco division of the FBI.

Carrillo's alleged accomplice, Robert Justus, was also charged with murder and attempted murder.

The killing of Underwood set off a massive manhunt. Eight days later, officers showed up at Carrillo's home after they discovered an abandoned white van that belonged to him and contained ammunition, firearms and bomb-making equipment, authorities said.

Carrillo ambushed the officers, killing Santa Cruz County Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller and critically injuring another deputy, according to authorities.

Carrillo suffered a gunshot wound but managed to flee the scene on feet, authorities said. He carjacked a vehicle but was ultimately taken into custody, bleeding from his hip, authorities said.

He was charged with multiple offenses, including murder and attempted murder, in the attack on the Santa Cruz County officers.

Federal authorities said an AR-15 was recovered at the scene where Carrillo was arrested and linked to the Oakland federal courthouse shooting. The assault rifle used by Carrillo was privately made, had no markings and had a silencer attached to the barrel of the weapon, authorities said.

Investigators found inside Carrillo's vehicle a ballistic vest with a patch on it that featured an igloo and a Hawaiian-style print — symbols associated with the far-right extremist "Boogaloo" movement, according to his federal complaint.

Carrillo, prior to his arrest, used his own blood to scrawl the word “boog” and “I became unreasonable” on the hood of the vehicle he carjacked, the complaint says. Both phrases are also associated with "Boogaloo," a term used by extremists to reference a violent uprising or impending civil war in the U.S., the complaint says.

According to the complaint, Carrillo wrote in a Facebook group on May 28 that the unrest is “on our coast now, this needs to be nationwide” and that “it’s a great opportunity to target the specialty soup bois."

In Boogaloo groups on Facebook and Reddit, “soup bois” is shorthand for government agencies that are abbreviated in acronyms like “alphabet soup" such as the FBI and ATF.

Online Boogaloo communities frequently post memes about targeting federal agencies in advance of another civil war.

In response to Carrillo’s message, the complaint alleges Justus wrote “let’s boogie,” another reference to the Boogaloo movement.

In Boogaloo Facebook groups, the complaint says, Carrillo was even more explicit about taking advantage of protests to stir up unrest and violence against police.

“Go to the riots and support our own cause. Show them the real targets. Use their anger to fuel our fire. Think outside the box. We have mobs of angry people to use to our advantage,” Carillo wrote in one Facebook group, according to the complaint.

Carrillo believed that the Boogaloo, or second civil war, was “kicking off now and if its not kicking off in your hood then start it,” according to the complaint.

Boogaloo groups are actively allowed on Facebook. Earlier this month, Facebook told NBC News it would stop recommending the groups in its recommendations algorithm, but the groups would be allowed on the site.

Backgrounder by Robert Evans
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-movement-is-not-what-you-think/

Strike For The South

[Montmorency]

Updates in the Atlanta shooting introduced here by Hooah:

Here's some video compilation from the scene.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/06/14/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-police-shooting-orig-kj.cnn

The shooting officer has been detained on charges of felony murder and more. His partner is facing aggravated assault charges. In response, many Atlanta officers have walked off the job in a self-abolishing tantrum.
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/17/879509659/former-atlanta-police-officer-who-shot-rayshard-brooks-charged-with-felony-murde
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-shooting-wednesday/index.html


The now-fired Atlanta Police officer who faces a felony murder charge for fatally shooting Rayshard Brooks last week kicked the 27-year-old man after he fell to the ground, Fulton County's district attorney said Wednesday. DA Paul Howard announced 11 charges against Garrett Rolfe, who five days ago fired three shots at Brooks, two of which hit Brooks in the back and another that hit a car with three people inside. After Rolfe shot Brooks, he exclaimed, "I got him," kicked Brooks as he struggled for his life, and failed to give timely first aid, Howard said. [...] The demeanor after the shooting "did not reflect any fear or danger of Mr. Brooks, but reflected other kinds of emotions," Howard said.

https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1273339116642537472

Fulton County DA Paul Howard: For 41 minutes and 17 seconds Rayshard Brooks followed all instructions. He was also never told he was being arrested for driving under the influence which police are required to do.

"Mr. Brooks never presented himself as a threat," Howard says.

Fulton County District Attorney Paul L. Howard, Jr. says one officer kicked Rayshard Brooks and another one stood on his shoulders as Brooks was fighting for his life on the ground after being shot.

Fulton County DA Paul Howard says former officer Garrett Rolfe is being charged with 11 charges including -- felony murder, three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, criminal damage to property, violation of oath, & aggravated assault (for kicking Rayshard Brooks).

A key detail: Fulton County DA Paul Howard says former officer Garrett Rolfe knew that the taser Rayshard Brooks was holding had been fired twice and didn't pose any danger to the officers when Brooks turned and tried to fire it at officers before Rolfe shot Brooks in the back.


Reminder that all cops are criminal scum until proven otherwise.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1271432151142223872.html


Want to know why it’s so hard for #cops to be ‘good apples’...

It was 2007 and I was assisting a call with an officer I’d never met before. He was from another team working overtime. Right in front of me he broke a kids nose with a punch. The septum was clearly deviated and
blood was everywhere. The kid was handcuffed and the officer enquired of me “what should ‘we’ arrest him for?” “What did he do?” I enquired. “He called me a name.” he said. After 20 mins of him trying to persuade me we should fabricate a crime he had to let the kid go. “We need
to do notes, get our story straight” he then told me. I don’t need assistance in writing what happened. I found a quiet place and wrote the facts. As I wrote I was joined by a female A/Sgt who knew this officer. She spent 20 mins trying to convince me this kid was a “shitbag” &
my notes should ‘reflect the danger he posed’. I was disgusted. We don’t behave this way. I went to the Platoon Commander and provide a statement for the assault I’d witnessed. An investigation commenced, one which should have been forwarded to @SIUOntario. The investigator
asked me questions like “How do you know his nose was broken?” and “Where did you get your medical degree?” (seriously?) Then came the result, a phone call from the Suptintendent whilst I was home. “Paul, our investigation is complete and you’ve been found guilt of misconduct
in that you failed to communicate with a colleague. A verbal warning will be put on file. Be careful in the future.” When I got back to work I was move from my team, and away from my friends, to this officers team. Officers just point blank refused to talk to me and I went to
many calls by myself, without backup. Then a message from another officer on team to meet him. He told me how we “look after” each other on this team. “Don’t stab each other in the back.” Then for some fucked up reason, he dropped the ‘n-bomb’ out of nowhere. I just drove off
leaving him sat there. Then I was called into the Deputy Chiefs office, with the same Superintendent and my Union rep. In front of both he told me to “be careful what you say in the future or you might not get backup when you need it.” I was an A/Inspector when I left the Met in
2005 to move to #Canada, but my appraisal that year reflected incompetence and unworthiness of the position of constable. Every position or course I applied for I was refused. I continued to #whistleblow until the Chief told me “You really have no concept of brotherhood, do you?”
Then I whistleblew #anonymous. 2015ish after going off sick with #PTSD from an attempt murder I went public with everything, to be met with a ‘covert operation’ by not only senior management by member of the City council and lawyers, telling anyone who would listen I’m “nuts,
crazy and delusional.” This is how they deal with officers who tried to do the right thing. Two warrants on my home, numerous criminal investigation and one arrest later and I’ll still do the right thing no matter what they try and do to me.
The officer who broke that kids nose is now a Sergeant, probably helping others cover up their wrongdoings. Me, I’m off sick and will probably never find gainful employment again. Was it worth it. Fuck, no! Would I do the same? Fuck, yes! Would I advise other officers to break
the ‘blue wall of silence.’ Well thats for them to decide, but it will end your career.

Until you offer protection for ‘good apples’ you asking them to give up their careers b/c of someone elses wrongdoing.

#PoliceBrutality #blm #BlackLivesMatter #PoliceReform
Addition for naysayers; this is a very small story in a massive corruption scandal. I used this story b/c it showed every step of a system used to demoralize anyone who would report wrongdoing. The police have effectively stopped defending the lawsuit. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/paul-manning-lawsuit-1.5289424



I've watched the whole show of force from all sides in the past month with a mixture of hope, cynicism and a good dose of reality that things will budge just a bit and won't move forwards that much.

Some of the results are definitely positive - removing statues of Leopold IInd (why is this still around????) - some results which were very questionable (defacing Churchill...uhh?), some results which were ideas with a certain intent but with a horrendously bad implementation (defunding the police).

Fact of the matter is, protesting is part of a healthy democracy and having them so lit up in the past month shows that people desperately want things to change. For good reason, mind you, but any single deviation from that mark (looting) is going to significantly hurt the desire for change for the general population. Because it often occurs that while Joe who owns a small business and heartily supports BLM is forced to shutdown because his store was defaced and looted, this is only going to bite you back.

Which is a shame because the concern of the protests is very, very valid.

The ethics or empirical effects of targeted property destruction are legitimate subjects of discussion - though I disagree, there are those who advocate for them as affirmatively good - but one who allows personal distaste at the sight of a broken storefront to displace their assessment of the underlying issues displays a weak commitment to addressing the causes of unrest.

This fellow (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/dining/minnesota-restaurant-fire-protests.html) is pretty upstanding, though he presents a rather high standard to rise to.


On Friday morning, as dawn broke through the smoke hanging over Minneapolis, the Gandhi Mahal Restaurant was severely damaged by fire. Hafsa Islam, whose father owns the Bangladeshi-Indian restaurant with members of his family, woke at 6 a.m. to hear the news. “At first, I was angry,” said Ms. Islam, 18. “This is my family’s main source of income.” But then she overheard her father, Ruhel Islam, speaking to a friend on the phone. “Let my building burn,” he said. “Justice needs to be served.” On Friday afternoon, after the fire stopped smoldering and the family came together, he repeated his support for the protests that had closed his restaurant. “We can rebuild a building, but we cannot rebuild a human,” said Mr. Islam, 42. “The community is still here, and we can work together to rebuild.”
[...]
“I understand why people did what they did,” she said of the demonstrators. “They had tried with the peaceful protesting, and it hasn’t been working.” Gandhi Mahal opened in 2008, during the Great Recession. Although Mr. Islam believes in nonviolent protest — he named his restaurant in honor of Mohandas K. Gandhi — he empathizes with the frustration of many Minneapolis residents. “I am going to continuously promote peaceful ways and nonviolent movement,” he said. “But our younger generation is angry, and there’s reason to be angry.”
[...]
“We were just trying to do what we could to help our community,” said Ms. Islam, who helped treat wounded protesters. “Sure, we had our business. Sure, we were trying to keep our kitchen open. But more than anything, we were concerned for our people.” The tension in Mr. Islam’s adopted city reminds him of his childhood in Bangladesh, when he lived through a dictatorship. Two of his fellow students were killed by the police, he said. “We grew up in a traumatic police state, so I am familiar with this type of situation,” he said.

[Gilrandir]

English is your second language, so it is probably not classy mocking those for misunderstanding.


You seem to be digging yourself into an ever deeper hole. English is my third language.



The "link" is not for URLs, but more to the fact that when homosexuality was legalised, people were not saying "look at the Ancient Greeks - we'd best legalise this too!"

~:smoking:

However low you might assess my English language skills, I will surprise you by the admission that I realised that "link" in your post stood for "connection", but your explanation doesn't fit it either. Let me remind you your initial question again:


Is there anything that has been created by any culture that would be acceptable to the current culture?

You asked about cultural trends/phenomena that had their origin in previous epochs but stood the test of time and survived till nowdays (or were denounced and forgotten to resurface centuries later). I gave two of such phenomena.

So before starting to mock anyone start keeping in mind what you ask for. Including the fact that you didn't ask about LEGALIZATION of trends but of their ACCEPTANCE.

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/R93GvP3.jpg

Apex whiteness.
https://newrepublic.com/article/158328/mark-patricia-mccloskey-st-louis-lawyers-guns-protesters
https://twitter.com/xshularx/status/1277398234055483393


Today Chief Justice Roberts sided with liberals in the abortion case (June Medical Services (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictive-louisiana-abortion-law-n1231392)) that we've been watching for a year. He specifically cited the precedent he disagrees with and voted against (Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, decided 5-3 in 2016 with Kennedy supporting the liberals), saying


I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case...
The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents... Stare decisis instructs us to treat like cases alike. The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law. The Louisiana law burdens women seeking previability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law, according to factual findings that are not clearly erroneous. For that reason, I concur in the judgment of the Court that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional.


Some might point to Justice Kagan's recent votes with the conservatives on some decisions emphasizing the importance of precedent as contributing to Roberts' tack. Also, he must have had a bone to pick with the appeals (Circuit) court judges who preempted his institutional prerogatives by unilaterally overturning his superior court precedent to uphold the Louisiana regulations concerned. Above all however I suspect Roberts just realized that trying to flagrantly body-blow abortion rights in the midst of a combined pandemic, economic crisis, and racial uprising that are profoundly depressing Trump's approval and election polling would be - strategically inadvisable. Evidence for this is that Roberts' concurrence is very narrow and offers a qualified-immunity-sized allowance where he might rule differently if the facts of the case (the regulations under review) weren't so similar to those of the holding precedent.

Adam Serwer (https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1277613269201584130) puts more stock in the sincerity of Roberts' ideological commitments than I do, but his observation is sound that


The Louisiana abortion case is another example of Roberts rejecting bad faith conservative arguments. He’s just saying you can’t tee up an identical case after losing the previous one just because you won an election and replaced a couple of justices. Law didn’t change.

Another case with a decision handed down today was Seila Law v. CFPB. Here Roberts sided with Trump in ruling Congressionally-protected executive offices unconstitutional under separation of powers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supreme-court-leaves-consumer-regulator-standing-but-backs-presidents-ability-to-fire-director.html

Before the election the Supreme Court might decide on the ACA (Obamacare) case California v. Texas coming to them, in which the Trump admin endorses full demolition of the legislation. Considering the present results, if Trump's indicators continue to look sunken in 4 months I seriously doubt many GOP operatives would be comfortable with an ACA-repeal October surprise. If the decision is handed down following a Biden victory, Roberts' willingness to screw with an incoming Democratic government might depend on the size of the Dems' Senate caucus.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/california-v-texas/

STFS
ACIN

[Idaho]

https://i.imgur.com/R93GvP3.jpg

Apex whiteness.
https://newrepublic.com/article/158328/mark-patricia-mccloskey-st-louis-lawyers-guns-protesters
https://twitter.com/xshularx/status/1277398234055483393


Today Chief Justice Roberts sided with liberals in the abortion case (June Medical Services (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictive-louisiana-abortion-law-n1231392)) that we've been watching for a year. He specifically cited the precedent he disagrees with and voted against (Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, decided 5-3 in 2016 with Kennedy supporting the liberals), saying



Some might point to Justice Kagan's recent votes with the conservatives on some decisions emphasizing the importance of precedent as contributing to Roberts' tack. Also, he must have had a bone to pick with the appeals (Circuit) court judges who preempted his institutional prerogatives by unilaterally overturning his superior court precedent to uphold the Louisiana regulations concerned. Above all however I suspect Roberts just realized that trying to flagrantly body-blow abortion rights in the midst of a combined pandemic, economic crisis, and racial uprising that are profoundly depressing Trump's approval and election polling would be - strategically inadvisable. Evidence for this is that Roberts' concurrence is very narrow and offers a qualified-immunity-sized allowance where he might rule differently if the facts of the case (the regulations under review) weren't so similar to those of the holding precedent.

Adam Serwer (https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1277613269201584130) puts more stock in the sincerity of Roberts' ideological commitments than I do, but his observation is sound that



Another case with a decision handed down today was Seila Law v. CFPB. Here Roberts sided with Trump in ruling Congressionally-protected executive offices unconstitutional under separation of powers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supreme-court-leaves-consumer-regulator-standing-but-backs-presidents-ability-to-fire-director.html

Before the election the Supreme Court might decide on the ACA (Obamacare) case California v. Texas coming to them, in which the Trump admin endorses full demolition of the legislation. Considering the present results, if Trump's indicators continue to look sunken in 4 months I seriously doubt many GOP operatives would be comfortable with an ACA-repeal October surprise. If the decision is handed down following a Biden victory, Roberts' willingness to screw with an incoming Democratic government might depend on the size of the Dems' Senate caucus.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/california-v-texas/

STFS
ACIN

America is so depressing. American politics is even more depressing. Twitter on American politics... Shoot me.

[CrossLOPER]

America is so depressing. American politics is even more depressing. Twitter on American politics... Shoot me.

Just don't laugh at it, you'll trigger it.

[Montmorency]

I think people read too much into Roberts as some master navigator with his finger always on the pulse of just how far he can go in making conservative decisions.
The dude has been working in the legal system his whole life and from what I can tell he is just a conservative dude who believes heavily in the legal process and the prestige of the SCOTUS.

If any of these conservative judges were full on shills, they wouldn't have a track record of shifting left: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-justices-get-more-liberal-as-they-get-older/

Roberts is not a political actor, and attempts to divine the output on any of these cases is always buried once the verdict is given and the ex post facto arguments come out. Of course he wouldn't push the abortion law at this moment...
No matter how well the Democrats do, they won't have the political strength in the Senate to remove him or anyone else from the court. At most Biden will replace Ginsburg and maybe Breyer, the conservatives will stay on until they die or another GOP president is elected, so if Roberts really wanted to kill Roe v Wade there was nothing stopping him from doing so right here and right now.

Like the rest of the conservative movement, Roberts is getting his reputation tarnished with the guilt by association that follows from him simply following his values during a Trump presidency. He is aware of the road he has to navigate in order to maintain the reputation of the institution he has spent is whole life in, but like all people he is flawed with his own biases and is not some stoic sage that can totally separate himself from his outputs.

@strike would have better understanding of whether his written arguments are in good faith or not.

We want to find the best account of Roberts' judicial behavior. The only accounts we can generate are of course ex post ones, but those are the ones that hopefully offer predictive power in the future.

We know for a fact that Roberts explicitly takes political considerations into his decision-making. Most notably in the ACA case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Roberts initially wanted to strike down the entire legislation on the basis of the invalidity of the individual mandate, but admitted concerns to his liberal colleagues about the perceived legitimacy of the act. He then negotiated with them, in a bona fide backroom deal, a limited holding that could split the difference. The end result was the preservation of the bulk of the legislation in exchange for the end of the automatic Medicaid expansion - the latter which Roberts initially considered constitutional.


Biskupic reports (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/john-roberts-biography-review/580453/) in detail for the first time on the machinations of the Obamacare case, revealing that Roberts started out in a different place. She writes that he initially voted with the four other conservatives to strike down the ACA, on the grounds that it went beyond Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Likewise, he initially voted to uphold the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid. But Roberts, who kept the opinion for himself to write, soon developed second thoughts.

Biskupic, who interviewed many of the justices for this book, including her subject, writes that Roberts said he felt “torn between his heart and his head.” He harbored strong views on the limitations of congressional power, but hesitated to interject the Court into the ongoing health-insurance crisis. After trying unsuccessfully to find a middle way with Kennedy, who was “unusually firm” and even “put off” by the courtship, Roberts turned to the Court’s two moderate liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. The threesome negotiated a compromise decision that upheld the ACA’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power, while striking down the Medicaid expansion. Future scholars will endlessly probe this fascinating moment in judicial history, but Biskupic deserves credit for writing the first draft.

We know that Roberts does not care for precedent or established doctrine that much, as we saw in Shelby County when he decided a provision of law should no longer apply because he felt it was no longer needed. Or the fact that his SCOTUS has been one of the most active in overturning precedent.
https://www.acslaw.org/issue_brief/briefs-landing/a-right-wing-rout-what-the-roberts-five-decisions-tell-us-about-the-integrity-of-todays-supreme-court/


Maybe if we looked more closely at the way Roberts decides different kinds of cases we would find some core principles after all? Or better said, core priorities. I'm not versed in the details but what I've gathered is that Roberts is especially given to decisions that limit labor rights, expand corporate rights, limit corporate regulations, and support the structural power (i.e. electoral advantage) of the Republican party. Whereas he may prioritize "social issues" less strongly, or may feel majoritarian pressures on those issues and take them into account.

(There is an idea floating around that the Supreme court orients its agents toward a more majoritarian posture than Congress/presidency actually have, because those are more responsive to factional pressures and polarization within the polity whereas the lifetime sinecures of a handful of magistrates generate... In other words, the argument is that SCOTUS is most sensitive to popular trends and therefore most majoritarian of the three branches in acceding to them as a legitimating measure. I don't understand the theory well enough to relate a strong version of it or say how fitting it sounds to me, but I would note that to the extent the court acts in a relatively majoritarian fashion it literally comes down to the decisions of one or two individuals, and I'm not sure then if that would be an institutionalized pattern or a more ad hoc "great man" thing. If you can find more on the concept do share.)

There have been multiple occasions already - one I recall was last year's census controversy - on which Roberts supported narrow (EDIT: procedural) decisions that rejected Republican arguments on the basis of being too crude and transparent, but explicitly allowed for the possibility of future shifts on the same substantive issues. In other words, 'bring me something less insulting to the intelligence next time.' This is exactly what the Trump admin did, by the way, with its 'third times the charm' travel ban iterations, with the last one being sufficiently transformed to be deemed acceptable by Roberts (and Kennedy in his last act). There is a certain etiquette, if that's the right word, that Roberts values above ones like Thomas or Alito.

Maybe we could put it as Roberts being a partisan, an ideological, and a strategic actor, with the lifetime sinecure of the Supreme Court affording him the opportunity to make independent decisions on the basis of his vision alone of what is right, what is best for country or party, and what befits his office.




BTW, I gave it a place above but some more photos of apex whiteness.


An armed couple (https://twitter.com/LaurieSkrivan/status/1277419900559142912) came out of their house and pointed guns toward BLM protesters in the Central West End

https://i.imgur.com/VCDTacG.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/kQ0gHP6.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hscOh2F.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cxjNhlF.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is she insane? He, if nothing else, has his finger distinctly off the trigger thus requiring him to make a decision to shoot. In at least one of the stills she has her finger on the trigger where a flippin' sneeze could get someone shot. Also, she is pointing her weapon at the crowd in every still shot, while he -- at least seemingly -- is angled away from the crowd even though at the ready.

Property protection is valid, but a sidewalk is public-right-of-way...

Not the wisest of decisions by this couple, to say the least. Her actions are REALLY too dangerous

[Csargo]

Her pistol doesn't look like it is loaded judging by the first photo, but still agree with Seamus, it's reckless and dangerous to be pointing a weapon into a crowd of people regardless.

[Gilrandir]

Her pistol doesn't look like it is loaded judging by the first photo, but still agree with Seamus, it's reckless and dangerous to be pointing a weapon into a crowd of people regardless.

But that was what kept the crowd of people off the premises, wasn't it?

[Hooahguy]

Except that the protesters werent coming for those two, they were marching to the mayors house. Their lives were not being threatened in a manner that justified pointing guns.

[Csargo]

They just drew attention to themselves, so if anything it had the opposite effect honestly, though that might have been what they were after.

[Gilrandir]

If a crowd of disgruntled people appears in the vicinity of your house you can never know where their anger may be directed.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If a crowd of disgruntled people appears in the vicinity of your house you can never know where their anger may be directed.

The law varies from place to place, but I'm pretty sure you can be charged with at least man-slaughter if you shoot and kill someone beyond the threshold of your home. In the pics posted, everyone seems to be on the sidewalk and not in the yard. Those two seem to be fueled by racial issues, IMHO, and just wanted to feel in control of the situation by brandishing weapons that they likely have never fired....:shrug:

[Gilrandir]

The law varies from place to place, but I'm pretty sure you can be charged with at least man-slaughter if you shoot and kill someone beyond the threshold of your home. In the pics posted, everyone seems to be on the sidewalk and not in the yard. Those two seem to be fueled by racial issues, IMHO, and just wanted to feel in control of the situation by brandishing weapons that they likely have never fired....

Perhaps everyone stayed away from their threshold on the sidewalk because these two brandished their weapons?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Perhaps everyone stayed away from their threshold on the sidewalk because these two brandished their weapons?

Peaceful protesters on their way to the mayors house...yeah, cell phones vs guns, that's even worse than bringing a knife to a gun fight:rolleyes:

This was more likely the thought process:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbpeJurU4AIoISG?format=jpg&name=large

:hmg:

[Gilrandir]

Peaceful protesters on their way to the mayors house...yeah, cell phones vs guns, that's even worse than bringing a knife to a gun fight:rolleyes:

This was more likely the thought process:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbpeJurU4AIoISG?format=jpg&name=large

:hmg:

As the events in the USA show, peaceful protesters may very quickly turn into rioters and looters (or the latter can use peaceful protesters as a dusguise).

[rory_20_uk]

As the events in the USA show, peaceful protesters may very quickly turn into rioters and looters (or the latter can use peaceful protesters as a dusguise).

The best way to get this to happen is to escalate the situation with guns and so on.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

The best way to get this to happen is to escalate the situation with guns and so on.

~:smoking:

Or it may be the contrary - rioters may think twice before attacking the house whose inhabitants manifest guts to stand up to them.

[ReluctantSamurai]

rioters may think twice before attacking the house whose inhabitants manifest guts to stand up to them

Have you not learned anything from the BLM protests??? Violence begets more violence, and the circle goes 'round-and-round'. How about talking to the protesters (again, the use of the word 'rioters' shows which side of the fence you are)?

Nope...instead we get a couple of white super-hero wannabes brandishing guns at primarily black protesters. As a couple of attorneys used to the gift of gab, walk out and find out what the marchers are upset about.

Nah! The only thing missing from that sequence of photos were MAGA hats.....:dunce:

[rory_20_uk]

Or it may be the contrary - rioters may think twice before attacking the house whose inhabitants manifest guts to stand up to them.

That might be the case... although almost all work on how to de-escalate such situations states the opposite - the riots themselves have tended to worsen when the police turn up as if they are an invading army (not a fair comparison - soldiers don't get covered by Qualified Immunity) things in general go worse than when they, y'know, act like a civilian police force.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

The best way to get this to happen is to escalate the situation with guns and so on.

~:smoking:

Yes, it should be evident that a great way to draw a crowd around your house is to come out and menace the passersby with shouts and waved guns. Don't want none, don't start none.

Gil, I know Ukraine has been brutalized by years of civil war, but this isn't the civilized way, to think random strangers are eternally prepared to ransack your residential neighborhood.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It was, apparently, within their rights under MO law to be there and to "defend" their property as the street and sidewalk were not public right-of-way (https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/st-louis-couple-law-professor-perpective/63-9801811c-5f1c-45e1-b2f9-65aa1ef69ba4) but a private street and sidewalk in which the two shared ownership as homeowners within that community.

Please note that this addresses the law, not the couple's judgment. The move was certainly inflammatory, especially her brandishing of her weapon.

They were also within 21' of their threat...which is considered not smart even on a tactical level.

[Gilrandir]

Have you not learned anything from the BLM protests???


I believe it is YOU (like in Americans) should learn something, not me.



Violence begets more violence, and the circle goes 'round-and-round'.


We had a candidate for prsidency who said that the best way to stop the war is "just to cease shooting". He has been a president for over a year now and the war in Ukraine isn't over. Evidently some recipes don't work.



How about talking to the protesters ?


That depends on the mood of the crowd. You may start doing it but some stronger arguments than words may turn out necessary.




(again, the use of the word 'rioters' shows which side of the fence you are)?



Taking sides is what Americans seem to be preoccupied with. I prefer to see the facts.

I saw the violence of cops that led to death. No doubt they should be punished. But it might have nothing to do with the race of the victim. American cops are like that to all people. And not only American. In Ukraine we recently had a case when a woman was raped by two policemen when she came to a police precinct to testify. But Ukrainians didn't think it was somehow motivated by the ideological convictions of the cops - just two brutes abusing power.

Besides, the record of the victim in Minnesota is far from clean. He was in jail several times (and there was a case when he pointed a gun at the stomach of a pregnant woman) so he doesn't qualify to be buried in a golden casket and worshipped in any other way. A typical hardened criminal.


Yes, it should be evident that a great way to draw a crowd around your house is to come out and menace the passersby with shouts and waved guns. Don't want none, don't start none.


What if they have a mind to start one? Another cheek approach?



Gil, I know Ukraine has been brutalized by years of civil war, but this isn't the civilized way, to think random strangers are eternally prepared to ransack your residential neighborhood.

I thought that those years of war have taught the world that it isn't civil.

[Montmorency]

What if they have a mind to start one? Another cheek approach?

I thought that those years of war have taught the world that it isn't civil.

There is such a thing as applying reason to the facts at hand; racial panic is not an acceptable alternative. If the aim is to avert damage to person or property, then the residents should not have introduced themselves to a stable situation in a manner conducive to generate damage to person or property.


American cops are like that to all people.

In 'All people are subject to police brutality, but some people are more subject than others,' the takeaway is not the first clause.


But Ukrainians didn't think it was somehow motivated by the ideological convictions of the cops - just two brutes abusing power.

If the cops were ethnic Ukrainians and the woman was an ethnic Ukrainian, then naturally it would not be controversial to draw the conclusion that racial animus was not a factor in the incident.


Besides, the record of the victim in Minnesota is far from clean. He was in jail several times (and there was a case when he pointed a gun at the stomach of a pregnant woman) so he doesn't qualify to be buried in a golden casket and worshipped in any other way. A typical hardened criminal.

So? The crimes for which an individual served their sentence decades ago cannot justify extrajudicial execution of a peaceable person on the spot unless we're in Dredd-world.

BTW, if you are of the opinion that convicted felons ought to be outlaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw), and uphold this view despite its current thoroughly-illegal and unconstitutional status, here is a recently-publicized blue-on-black with subsequent fascist shit in which the victim was among the best of us.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGlHMZQtO7U
https://twitter.com/DaniOliver/status/1279155358666305541

[ReluctantSamurai]

Taking sides is what Americans seem to be preoccupied with. I prefer to see the facts.

Here's a fact that explains the whole protest situation in a nutshell: if those protesters had been white business people marching to the mayors house to protest a local lock-down order, instead of black protesters marching to protest the publication of their names for coming out in favor of police reform, then the whole incident NEVER happens. Skin color, sadly does make a difference:shame:

Follow up:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jun/30/what-we-know-about-st-louis-couple-who-pointed-gun/

And video from the protesters pov:

https://twitter.com/Ohun_Ashe/status/1277742108984647686


"A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside and put us in fear for our lives," Mark McCloskey said, and shared photos of the destroyed gate.

Does that accurately describe the video clip from one of the protesters?

How about these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpSr0eYO9o4

See a pattern? Can you say K-A-R-E-N:juggle:

An even more aggressive confrontation:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53282548?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world&link_location=live-reporting-story

With comments like this from Fearless Leader, is it any wonder his minions are resorting to guns?

(From his 4th of July speech at Mt. Rushmore):


“This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly.” He added darkly: “In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance. If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted and punished.”

[Idaho]

I think you are going to get a nasty, inflammatory, gerrymandered election. And if he wins, he's going to go full bore fascist.

[edyzmedieval]

The last weeks in American politics have been some of the nastiest political maneouvers I've ever seen. Even by shoddy republic standards, to put this in a mild way, this is beyond the pale.

[Montmorency]

Interesting study on a phenomenon I had never considered. "The property tax gaps are worst for low earners, but even the highest-earning black Americans pay more on average in property taxes than similarly well-off white peers living nearby."


Black families pay significantly higher property taxes than white families, new analysis shows (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/02/black-property-tax/)

State by state, neighborhood by neighborhood, black families pay 13 percent more in property taxes each year than a white family would in the same situation, a massive new data analysis shows. Black-owned homes are consistently assessed at higher values, relative to their actual sale price, than white homes, according to a new working paper by economists Troup Howard of the University of Utah and Carlos Avenancio-León of Indiana University. African Americans have long said they bear a disproportionate burden for taxes that support local police, schools and parks, but nationwide measures of this type of systemic racism are hard to come by. To expose the structural and historical factors behind these discriminatory property tax assessments, the economists analyzed more than a decade of tax assessment and sales data for 118 million homes throughout the country. In almost every state, property tax assessments were higher in areas with more black and Hispanic residents. In city after city, the authors show it is not just differences in the buildings or land but also the racial composition of the neighborhood that matters. The gap between white families and minority households remains large — 10 percent — when you combine data for Hispanic and black families. (The authors excluded California because Proposition 13, passed in 1978, drastically changed how property is valued there.)

“During the Jim Crow era, local white officials routinely manipulated property tax assessments to overburden and punish black populations and as a hidden tax break to landowning white gentry,” said University of Virginia historian Andrew Kahrl.

Many county assessors intentionally overvalued black properties, sometimes in direct retaliation for black political action. Kahrl, whose has long researched the history of property tax discrimination against black Americans, has found white officials going to extreme lengths to hike black taxes. In one such case in 1932, a black North Carolina resident was taxed for the value of two stray dogs that had been seen on her property.

The values of black-owned homes tend to grow more slowly than values of white-owned ones. The white people who make up the vast majority of home buyers tend to avoid black neighborhoods, which cuts black sellers off from many potential buyers. That can drive down the sale price of black-owned homes. Given that difference in price appreciation, if an assessor assumes a black-owned home gains value as quickly as a white-owned home, the assessed value of the black-owned home will quickly outstrip its market value. Every year, the black family pays more in property taxes, even though the sales price of its home is not increasing as quickly. Nearby white families benefit from the opposite trend: Their homes increase in value more rapidly than their assessments, giving them an ever-growing tax break. While neighborhood and race are the biggest drivers of the property tax gap, the economists found others. In particular, the appeals process illustrates how much of the property tax system functions in a way that penalizes black wealth, even as it appears neutral on its face. As part of their study, the economists reviewed 3.4 million property tax appeals from Chicago and surrounding Cook County and found black homeowners were significantly less likely to appeal their property tax assessments. When they did appeal, black homeowners were less likely to win. And when they won, they earned smaller assessment reductions.

Hazel Shakur has sold homes in the well-off, mostly black suburbs of Prince George’s County in Maryland for the better part of two decades. She is one of Redfin’s top-selling agents in the county but still faces the ever-present frustration of potential bidders backing out when they see how high their property tax bills would be. Shakur has a business degree from American University, earned on a full scholarship, and has negotiated nearly 500 real estate transactions, yet said it had not occurred to her to challenge her own property taxes. She grew up in a renter household and was not taught about appealing property taxes or any of the other small strategies white homeowners have used to accumulate generational wealth. “Sometimes you’re so glad to finally get somewhere that you don’t want to make a lot of noise and create any unwanted attention — you’re just grateful to have arrived and made it, and you pay your bills,” she said. “Even if you’re not happy about your property taxes, it doesn’t occur to you to question.”

Also, a reminder that the nation's entire transport and housing infrastructure was explicitly, consciously designed to destroy and deny non-white wealth until maybe 50 years at best - at which point most of it was a fixed facet.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-24/bulldoze-la-freeways-racism-monument

[Gilrandir]

In 'All people are subject to police brutality, but some people are more subject than others,' the takeaway is not the first clause.


Perhaps it is because these others break the law more often? And in my opinion, the police reaction is a natural thing to happen in a country where firearms could be borne by almost everyone.



If the cops were ethnic Ukrainians and the woman was an ethnic Ukrainian, then naturally it would not be controversial to draw the conclusion that racial animus was not a factor in the incident.


I could offer half a dozen factors off the top of my head (and after putting on my thinking hat as many more) that could be seen by conspiracy-minded people and blown out of proprotion by the media (mind you, I don't know much either of the victim or of perpetrators, but all kinds of factors may be found and given a proper slant):

1) The victim was a Russian-speaker and the cops were Ukrainian-speakers.
The media: "Ukrainian nazis of whom current law enforcement bodies consist rape a Russian-speaking woman. Let's disband the police."
2) The victim was a Ukrainian-speaker and the cops were Russian-speakers.
The media: "Russian-speaking cops who are FSB agents under cover rape a Ukrainian patriot. Let's disband the police."
3) The victim was a kindergarten teacher.
The media: "Cops that had been made to eat broccoli in the kindergarten remember their old grudge decades later and take revenge upon the helpless teacher. Let's forbid all cops' kids to attend kindergartens".
4) The victim was a refugee from Donetsk.
"The media: "Cops harass poor inhabitants of Donbas so Putin was right in liberating the oppressed population of Donbas from the atrocities of Kyiv junta. Let's give independence to DNR."
5) The cops were reefugees from Donbas.
The media: "These people from Donetsk are given work and shelter far from the war and this is how they express their gratitude to the generous people of Ukraine. Let's kick all Donetsk refugees back to where they belong".



So? The crimes for which an individual served their sentence decades ago cannot justify extrajudicial execution of a peaceable person on the spot unless we're in Dredd-world.


You didn't read carefully what I wrote. I repeat: the perpetrators should be punished. BUT: I see no reason in making a saint or martyr out of an average рецидивист. Or would you like to see his portrait on dollars instead of these dirty slave-owning Washington and Franklin?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Perhaps it is because these others break the law more often? And in my opinion, the police reaction is a natural thing to happen in a country where firearms could be borne by almost everyone.

You are missing the mark again. There are numerous studies to the effect that blacks and other minorities are policed more often, and more heavy-handed than whites. And no, I'm not going to do your homework for you in finding these studies, I'm sure you are resourceful enough to do that yourself.

Although there are some calling for complete disbanding of police, most are not that radical. There's no reason for beat cops to be essentially para-military, brandishing military equipment. That's the job for S.W.A.T. In place of dialogue to diffuse a bad situation, deadly force has become all too common because many LEO's are people who couldn't make it in the military (or are ex-military) and get their rocks off shooting people. And then there's the "scared-shitless" nOOb, who's never been in a schoolyard brawl let alone a dangerous physical confrontation on a city street, and so reaches for that gun in panic thinking that their life is in danger (and that situation is real, but being able to tell the difference when it is and when it isn't is what separates a better trained cop from a rookie one).

[Gilrandir]

You are missing the mark again. There are numerous studies to the effect that blacks and other minorities are policed more often, and more heavy-handed than whites. And no, I'm not going to do your homework for you in finding these studies, I'm sure you are resourceful enough to do that yourself.


O-ho! Now you are playing a teacher who is giving a hometask to me! Summer school is on? I somehow don't remember failing my semester in American ethnic awareness class!

Now what I found (https://datausa.io/profile/soc/police-officers):

23859



How come the police where blacks are overrepresented in comparison to their percentage in the entire US population are brutalizing their race?



There's no reason for beat cops to be essentially para-military, brandishing military equipment.

I gave the chief reason. Now YOUR homework is to overcome your name-conditioned reluctance and go to post 2821 in this thread and read again my take on the issue.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Non-Hispanic whites are 60.4% of US population; Hispanic/Latinx 18.3%; Black 13.4%; Asian 5.9%; Native Americans 1.3%; all others 3%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

Incarceration per 100,000 by race: White (male & female) 769/100k; Black (male & female) 4607/100k; Hispanic (male & female) 1908/100k.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

So African Americans are put in jail at a rate 6x that of whites, even though the white population is nearly 5x that of the black population; Latinx are jailed at a rate 2.5x that of whites even though the white population is nearly 3.5x greater.

A few more facts just for shits and giggles:

https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/


If African Americans and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates as whites, prison and jail populations would decline by almost 40%.

The imprisonment rate for African American women is twice that of white women.

African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites.

The list goes on and on:

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-04/Numbers-behind-anger-U-S-racism-inequality-in-stats-R39PKBLwty/index.html

Consider yourself schooled...~D


go to post 2821 in this thread and read again my take on the issue

None of that is relevant to the excessive use of force, or why many large police forces have budgets bigger than some countries:shrug:

[a completely inoffensive name]

The last weeks in American politics have been some of the nastiest political maneouvers I've ever seen. Even by shoddy republic standards, to put this in a mild way, this is beyond the pale.
I've read some articles that Trump thinks his main issue is not being more overtly racist. That he went on to regret listening to Jared K. regarding support of a watered down crime bill.
If this is the case, that he believes his issue is not pandering enough to the base...well, get ready for the most vile side of American politics to come out over the next 4 months.




I gave the chief reason. Now YOUR homework is to overcome your name-conditioned reluctance and go to post 2821 in this thread and read again my take on the issue.
The presence of guns doesn't justify the militarization of police forces. The United Kingdom created London Metropolitan Police in the 1830s, prior to public disarmament. These were the principles behind the operation of the new police force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles):


To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognize always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.


The role of police is to work hand-in-hand with citizens to achieve peace and reductions in crime. They are citizens who are given the role of peacekeeper only through their legitimacy, not through their use of force. Therefore, police force is only proportional to the need of self-defense, there is no legitimacy in using force for aggressive or preventive measures.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't understand. These episodes indicate the opposite. And why do you strike out "ideological"? That current should be evident whether or not you approve of it.
He had no restrictions or repercussions from ruling in a more overtly conservative opinion but he chose not to rule that way. An ideological man places his ideas above the process at hand, the end is to implement/enforce those ideas however you get there is not an issue. His ruling indicate a partisanship toward a side, but I just don't think you can simultaneously be 'ideological' and 'strategic' at the same time. To be pragmatic in making slight changes over time is by definition a reformist, incrementalist attitude not a radical ideological one. Putting it this way, an overtly ideological conservative wouldn't compromise on such an issue as abortion, to an ideological conservative abortion is murder and there is no justification for keeping the practice legal in any way shape or form, precedence be damned. I think you are trying to have it all, he is somehow a mastermind of both pragmatism and activism, of process and ideology.



That's like a mirror image of the anti-Democrat reasoning that if Democrats complain about Trump undermining American foreign policy, they're a bunch of reckless imperialists. What's going on here, over and over, is that Roberts makes pretensions to calling "balls and strikes", respecting tradition, precedent, and constitutional and statutory text, but will happily employ flimsy pretexts and ignore his stated principles to rule against laws or doctrines that protect labor/civil rights or hinder Republican power.
Just because he is a hypocrite doesn't mean we should default to admonishing him for rejecting stare decisis, or smear with the label 'activist'. We should be focusing on the importance of having more liberal justices on the court to overturn bad conservative rulings, so to argue in this manner only hurts the left's case in the long run. That's the extent of my point. Label Roberts as a liar for saying one thing and doing another, but lets not act as if stare decisis in itself is somehow good and not to be messed with.



Whether or not liberal judges should act this way - and I don't really care right now to examine the balance of judging and revising precedent on the merits of legality or justice versus promoting stability in governance - is a separate question from how to evaluate Roberts and his court.

No. How you view the role of the court and what its limitations ought to be, would definitely color your evaluation. I can't admonish Roberts for doing what I would like to see done to policies I disagree with. If I was in Robert's shoes, I would write any argument to remove Qualified Immunity in its current form. I can criticism him on the decisions themselves, but not the method in which the ruling was given.

[Gilrandir]

Non-Hispanic whites are 60.4% of US population; Hispanic/Latinx 18.3%; Black 13.4%; Asian 5.9%; Native Americans 1.3%; all others 3%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

Incarceration per 100,000 by race: White (male & female) 769/100k; Black (male & female) 4607/100k; Hispanic (male & female) 1908/100k.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

So African Americans are put in jail at a rate 6x that of whites, even though the white population is nearly 5x that of the black population; Latinx are jailed at a rate 2.5x that of whites even though the white population is nearly 3.5x greater.

A few more facts just for shits and giggles:

https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/



The list goes on and on:

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-04/Numbers-behind-anger-U-S-racism-inequality-in-stats-R39PKBLwty/index.html

Consider yourself schooled...~D

None of that is relevant to the excessive use of force, or why many large police forces have budgets bigger than some countries:shrug:


Your attempts at schooling me went astray. Perhaps because you were trying to show different statistics. I was talking of the percentage of blacks working in the police. As it turned out, it is larger than the percentage of blacks among the US population. And police as a whole is biased against blacks, as you claim. These two statements are at odds with each other.

So your next hometask: re-read my post on it and try to explain why having disproportionate number of blacks in the police (as the statistics have it) results in the boost in the excessive use of force (as you claim).




The presence of guns doesn't justify the militarization of police forces. The United Kingdom created London Metropolitan Police in the 1830s, prior to public disarmament. [


But the disarmament did happen! And after two hundred years bobbies don't have arms either. If the US starts public disarmament now in 2220 the current problem will peter out.




Therefore, police force is only proportional to the need of self-defense, there is no legitimacy in using force for aggressive or preventive measures.

Aren't preventive measures a kind of self-defense in advance?



And yet, most of the civilian firearms are held by white conservatives, who tend to receive the most deferential or light touch.


Perhaps it is because there are more whites in the USA? And I'm more than sure that most guns owned by non-whites (who are poorer) are non-registered and illegal.




Which is not just a problem of fairness but one of institutional integrity as police departments are notoriously overrun by Neo-Nazis and the like.


So a disproportionate percentage of blacks in the police work back to back with Neo-Nazis and never mind it, moreover they learn from them to mistreart their race?



If the victim was of a different ethnicity from the offender, the possibility of a hate crime should be evaluated. Especially in the context of ongoing violent national conflict.


My post was to show that sometimes a crime is just a crime so there is no need to try to see some ideology behind it. Or, alternately, if you wish to see ideology behind every crime it won't be hard to find it (as I showed in my suppositional review).



Your assumption is not the case.


Painting the victim as an angel (by the way, he was arrested on suspicion of forgery - was it just an unjustified suspicion or did he have fake money on him?) and burying him in a golden casket is quite enough to engender my assumption. If you see it differently, it is your assumption. I believe mine isn't worse than yours.



As for homework, look up "structural racism" and "overpolicing."

I'm put in mind of this old ditty (http://www.chukfamily.ru/kornei/tales/barmalej).



So you think this children's poem is racist? And Africa wasn't used for the sake of rhythm? So if the poetic meter required "America" or "Asia" Chukovsky would still use "Africa" because he was a racist?
Then you could start seeing racial bias in everything starting with any chess composition where белые начинают и выигрывают.

[Idaho]

Removed

[Gilrandir]

Unfortunately Eastern Europe has as high a population of unreconstructed white racists as the US, ---------

I would greatly be obliged if you cited anything of my posts that enable you to make such a conclusion.

[ReluctantSamurai]

So your next hometask: re-read my post on it and try to explain why having disproportionate number of blacks in the police (as the statistics have it) results in the boost in the excessive use of force (as you claim).

Some fact checking:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/04/urban-areas-police-are-consistently-much-whiter-than-people-they-serve/?arc404=true&itid=lk_inline_manual_35


Police departments across the country have become less overwhelmingly white since the 1990s, according to a study published by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics last fall. The agency’s survey of police departments found that the share of white non-Hispanic police fell from 78.5 percent in 1997 to 71.5 percent in 2016.

The white share of the country’s population, however, fell over that time from 72 percent to 63 percent, so the change in police did not keep pace with demographic change.


In some communities, the population is relatively balanced between white and nonwhite, but the vast majority of the police are white. In Wayne County, Mich., which includes Detroit, about 78 percent of the police are white, compared with 49 percent of the people. Baltimore County, which surrounds Baltimore City but does not include it, has about 85 percent white police patrolling an area that is 57 percent white. Milwaukee County, Wis., has about 83 percent white police and 51 percent white residents.

So, consistantly, far higher proportion of white officers to black officers even in areas that have a proportionately higher population of non-whites.

The key part in that article, to me, is this:


A University of Maryland criminologist found that crime rates in minority neighborhoods are lower when local police and government diversity matches the community. “When you have diverse police departments, diverse governments broadly speaking, that sets in motion dynamics that filter down to the community that galvanizes trust. That helps reduce crime,” said María Vélez, an associate professor in criminal justice.

So I'd be curious what data you used to say that there are a 'disproportional number of blacks in police'? Excessive use of force? How about this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTFNEbUcStQ

This article is a take on the recent calls for police reforms from current and former black officers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-duty-and-burden-of-the-black-police-officer/2020/07/05/6508b9bc-b570-11ea-aca5-ebb63d27e1ff_story.html


“Brooks [Rayshard Brooks] got the better of two officers, and I know it was embarrassing because it’s on video,” Taylor says. Police officers, she says, “will talk about each other to no end. ‘You let someone take your Taser? You have no business in this job.’ When that person turns that same Taser on you, you think, ‘I’ll shoot them’? That was about ego.”


David J. Thomas, the retired officer who’s now a counselor in Florida, has been thinking about Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis officer who knelt on George Floyd’s neck before his death. He watched the videos of Chauvin kneeling on his neck and saw the problem of police culture in Chauvin’s face — as he registers that his actions are being documented. “He’s looking at the kid who’s videoing him on the phone,” Thomas says, and “he was comfortable in that. That meant to me that he had done this a thousand times before. And he was supported by the organizational culture in the union, and he would not get in trouble.”

[Gilrandir]

So, consistantly, far higher proportion of white officers to black officers even in areas that have a proportionately higher population of non-whites.

So I'd be curious what data you used to say that there are a 'disproportional number of blacks in police'?


When I said about the disproportional number of black policemen I didn't mean that they exceeded the number of white policemen. I meant that the percentage of black population in the US (11.7%) was lower than the percentage of black cops among all US cops (12.8%).
The data from: https://datausa.io/profile/soc/police-officers




Excessive use of force? How about this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTFNEbUcStQ


I never denied the excessive use of force by US policemen (as probably by cops in many countries). And I think it should be punished. By the way, are black cops involved in excessive force use as well? Or are they allowed to do that because they are black? Black lives matter and other lives are expendable?

But I wonder would there be much uproar if the excessive force was used against a person of any other race. As the case of OJ Simpson showed, implicating race into criminal investigations may give it a non-objective bias. One thing that is considered somehow justified for people of one race is stigmatized as a racism when people of other race do the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrH3SbMhEGA

Can you imagine the reaction of the society if white people made blacks kiss their boots?

So a conclusion: a crime is a crime whoever commits it. And it should be punished. Police brutality is police brutality no matter against whom it is directed. And it should be punished.

If a hardened criminal is murdered by policemen when he did nothing to deserve such a treatment it is a crime. And it should be punished.

But his violent and unjustified death doesn't atone for his crimes committed against other people who did nothing to deserve it either. Consequently, no eulogies for him, no stories of how good and merciful and nice he had been, no golden caskets and knee-bending. No matter what race he was.

[ReluctantSamurai]

the percentage of black population in the US (11.7%) was lower than the percentage of black cops among all US cops (12.8%).

If you consider a 1.1% difference to be disproportionate, so be it....:shrug:


By the way, are black cops involved in excessive force use as well?

I'm sure that they are. However, they are far less likely to fire their weapon when dispatched to a black neighborhood:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z


Based on information from more than two million 911 calls in two US cities, he concluded that white officers dispatched to Black neighbourhoods fired their guns five times as often as Black officers dispatched for similar calls to the same neighbourhoods.

In fact, except for one anomaly, black police officers fired their weapons less no matter the racial composition of the neighborhood during the course of answering those 1.2 million 9-1-1 calls.....

Statistical studies about racial differences for police officers in the use of force are out there, I'm sure. But they are damn hard to find, and I've no patience to spend hours digging:inquisitive:

[CrossLOPER]

If you consider a 1.1% difference to be disproportionate, so be it....:shrug:
What are you? A scientist? A statistician? Are you gonna throw phrases like "statistically insignificant" at me? Well I got news for you: I have 40 or 50 sacrificial animals in my back yard at any given time. Divination and liver reading is how I make all of my important decisions. /jk

[ReluctantSamurai]

I'm into humor lately so here's some funnies:

https://www.politico.com/video/2020/07/02/punchlines-ken-and-karen-vs-the-internet-079705

That other war movie starring Ken and Barbie in "Saving Private Property".


:bounce:

[Gilrandir]

I'm sure that they are. However, they are far less likely to fire their weapon when dispatched to a black neighborhood


As the accident with Floyd showed, you don't need to fire guns to cause massive protests.



Aside from blacks not being disproportionately represented in police, how can you justify your assumption that POC police won't participate in police maltreatment of POC communities?


My assumption is the contrary: if the police in general maltreats blacks, so black policemen are also held responsible for such malpractice.



Conservative white men own more guns than there are conservative white men. Plenty of "urban" black people are legal gun owners, for better or worse. There are very few states in the country with any requirement to register guns for normal possession; there are more states that ban registries than maintain them in any form.


If there is no registration for gun ownership there is no possible way to correctly gauge the number of guns owned by any race.



When actions are consistently racially-biased in practice, it can be exceedingly difficult to distinguish whether any single incident arises from this bias or from another cause. It becomes a pure distraction to try to split these hairs.


Yet when given a choice you always opt for racial explanation?



He was arrested on suspicion of intentionally submitting a counterfeit $20 bill for payment, which accusation was without any evidence known to the police at the time and in abstract sounds beneath the notice of authorities, let alone the intervention of multiple police units. The business owner went on record that he knew and liked Floyd well and that the call to police was made by a young and inexperienced employee, a call the employer would have countermanded had he been present.


So you have to be old and experienced to learn to condone submitting counterfeit money if you know the person who did it?



Who says he was an angel? The George Floyd incident was incorporated into the Movement for Black Lives - not the Movement for the Sanctified George Floyd - because it was another representation of the societal adverse treatment for which so many demand redress.


And that is why he was buried in a golden casket?



I remember you defending the character of Stepan Bandera as Ukrainian national hero and sometime-anti Nazi - but he was indisputably a much worse person than George Floyd could ever have been. If one can very charitably extend you the opportunity to sublimate a flawed person into the ideal of national liberation or identity, then you should be able to do the same with a mere reference point in a valid list of grievances.


1. I didn't defend Bandera. My point was and is that we should know all the details of any person and see both the bad and the good sides to him. And each person should be lauded for what good he did, and denounced for what bad he did. In the case of Bandera many people see only what they choose to, forgetting the opposite. I tried to show all sides of his personality. But it is a usual story with many other historical figures like Bohdan Kmelnitsky who fought to liberate Ukraine from Poland, but in this fight mass atrocities against the Polish and the Jews happened.

2. There is no criterion to judge a person to be better or worse so your claim of Floyd being better than Bandera is arbitrary.

One of my research fields now is related to the theory of possible worlds. I use it to analyze literary characters, but in fact it could be used to analyze real-life people.

Basically, any character in a book lives in several possible worlds (father, lover, husband, businessman, neighbor, son, relative, boss, employee, sportsman, etc.) and can be viewed as a collection of different personalities each of which can have a different (sometimes even polar) assessment. For example, Soames Forsyte is depicted as a very caring father and devoted son, but a very lousy husband. And dumping all his characteristics into one heap will give you an average man that abound in this world.

I believe that assessing Floyd (or any other person for that matter) we should also try to see all his possible worlds and assess them. Current obsession with him tends to ignore the shadiest aspects of his personality which makes his overall portrait lop-sided.



Give me a break, this is a poem written a hundred years ago about how children should not go to Africa because it is awful, dangerous, and full of scary animals and cannibals. The idea that someone could have written this poem, which contains so many familiar contemporary tropes about Africa and its inhabitants, about America or any place other than the "Dark Continent" is :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

This cultural artifact, perpetuated across generations, is exactly the kind of obscurantist prejudice absorbed by the general population of Europe at the time and even to this day. It has no other context or genealogy and your resistance to acknowledging racism puzzles me.


Do you remember that ther was no racism in the USSR and all people were proclaimed equal? Moreover, the Soviet ideology contrasted the free Soviet society where all were treated the same with capitalist countries that were grounded on oppression of other races in colonies and metropolis.
In the book "Поднятая целина" by Sholokhov one of the characters (Makar Nagulnov) was a strong partisan of interracial marriages. The whole movie "Цирк" is a story of an American circus lady who had a black son and was censured and even ostracized in the USA so she had to come to the USSR where she and her son could finally find the land of milk and honey. Soviet leaders often met with the leaders of African ex-colonies and supported them in all possible ways. African students studied in Soviet universities. So the official doctrine was anything but racist.

Thus, representing Africa as a dangerous land in a children's poem is devoid of any racial issues. Australia, Amazonia, Indochina could be used as well if it suited the metrics of the poem. As is the way with Americans, they see race and gender where there is none.

On a sidenote, I read a critic's take on feminism in Tolkien's books and the critic claimed that when Frodo and Sam went through Shelob's tunnel it was a reflection of penetration into female pudenda and the growths that were on the walls where like pubic hair.

Don't become like that in treating simple stories.



Whether he atoned for his crimes (by most accounts he was an upstanding citizen since he got out of prison) is both irrelevant and not something you seem placed to determine. The reality of it is that which cases get the most attention is a matter of timing and media coverage, not according to some private hierarchy of virtue and innocence. Your fixation on Floyd's character misses the point.

And disregarding his character makes the whole picture incomplete and biased.

[ReluctantSamurai]

As the accident with Floyd showed, you don't need to fire guns to cause massive protests.

And the current data shows that black police officers are far more likely to choose dialogue over violence to diffuse a situation.


if the police in general maltreats blacks, so black policemen are also held responsible for such malpractice.

This makes no sense. If I go out and shoot a black man, does that mean that all white males of Italian descent are held resposible? All police should be held accountable, that's one of the main tenents of police reform. Transparency of the service records so that all officers, white, black or otherwise, male or female, are held accountable for their actions, and can be taken to task when their actions lead to bad situations. We don't have this, at this point, mainly because of agreements between municipalities and police unions. Derek Chauvin had 18 prior misconduct complaints before he killed George Floyd. One of the other officers involved had 6 such complaints. And yet, nothing happened except a minor slap on the wrist. This is one of the root problems with the police force in the US....little accountability for its' actions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/us/derek-chauvin-george-floyd.html


And that is why he was buried in a golden casket?

What is this fixation with the manner of George Floyd's burial? Extravagant? Perhaps. But how about these:

https://www.livescience.com/15980-death-8-burial-alternatives.html


According to Celetis Memorial Spaceflights, a company that offers the postmortem flights, a low-orbit journey that lets your cremains experience zero gravity before returning to Earth starts at $995. A chance to orbit Earth and eventually burn up in the atmosphere runs around $3,000. Dedicated space-lovers can have themselves launched to the moon or into deep space for $10,000 and $12,500, respectively.

Ground Control to Major Tom........


Do you remember that ther was no racism in the USSR and all people were proclaimed equal? Moreover, the Soviet ideology contrasted the free Soviet society where all were treated the same with capitalist countries that were grounded on oppression of other races in colonies and metropolis.

Is this meant to be sarcastic, or are you referring to a particular time period of Soviet history?

[Gilrandir]

What is this fixation with the manner of George Floyd's burial? Extravagant? Perhaps.


Being buried in gold is a sign of profound veneration. Which, in view of his criminal past he didn't deserve.





Is this meant to be sarcastic, or are you referring to a particular time period of Soviet history?

It was the official doctrine of the Communists since the inception of the USSR. Everybody was proclaimed equal irrespective of their sex, age, race, and so on.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Which, in view of his criminal past he didn't deserve.

Your opinion...noted....time to move on, I think.


Everybody was proclaimed equal irrespective of their sex, age, race, and so on.

I think the Polish killed and buried at Katyn might have an issue with that. Even after refusing to classify the killings as a war crime in the early 1990's, the Soviet answer to the whole issue was to blame it on Stalin. How Communist of them:no:

But methinks we are getting waaay off-topic here:shrug:

[Gilrandir]

I think the Polish killed and buried at Katyn might have an issue with that. Even after refusing to classify the killings as a war crime in the early 1990's, the Soviet answer to the whole issue was to blame it on Stalin. How Communist of them:no:


The massacre had nothing to do with inequality issues - just exterminating the useless/dangerous people. And in this respect all were equal - people with certain political views could be disposed of, irrespective of their race, nationality, sex and so on.

But you forget about the difference between officially proclaimed doctrine and the actual practice. The latter included anti-semitism, the policy of eradicating national sentiment, melting all nationalities of the USSR into one ubernational entity - the Soviet people, criminal persecition of homosexuals and a lot of other things that were at odds with the officially sanctioned ideology of equality.



But methinks we are getting waaay off-topic here:shrug:

I agree. Just look and the thread title.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The massacre had nothing to do with inequality issues - just exterminating the useless/dangerous people. And in this respect all were equal - people with certain political views could be disposed of, irrespective of their race, nationality, sex and so on.

But you forget about the difference between officially proclaimed doctrine and the actual practice. The latter included anti-semitism, the policy of eradicating national sentiment, melting all nationalities of the USSR into one ubernational entity - the Soviet people, criminal persecition of homosexuals and a lot of other things that were at odds with the officially sanctioned ideology of equality.



I agree. Just look and the thread title.

I have always thought that the Stalinist Soviet state was fairly "ecumenical" in its treatment of others. ANYBODY who could be vaguely considered as being a threat somehow, someway, in the not-too-distant future was ripe for exploitation and/or extermination.

This did not make the Stalinist state any LESS despicably evil than the Nazi state.

[Idaho]

I would greatly be obliged if you cited anything of my posts that enable you to make such a conclusion.

I don't think you would be obliged
I think you would argue the toss. I don't think you are able to see the problem.

[Gilrandir]

I don't think you would be obliged
I think you would argue the toss. I don't think you are able to see the problem.
And you would prefer people to take your words lying down?

I see. Well, I've been through it with Brenus. He threw accusations at me and when I gave my arguments he resorted to the unbeatable you-just-don't-understand tactics.

A humorist called Mikhail Zhvanetsky said once: "The best behavior in a dispute is to take a closer look at your opponent and then demolish his arguments by focusing on his deficiencies, like that: How can a bald person with such a nose offer his opinion on the performance of Herbert von Karajan? Let him first grow some hair, correct his nose and then have his say!"

You do the same. Branding somebody as racist/nazi/obcurantist/... is a perfect move after which one doesn't have to offer any proofs of such a conclusion and may cease arguing since it is useless to try to prove something to a racist/nazi/obcurantist/... An impeccable move. Way to go.

[Idaho]

There are indisputable facts:

Arrest rates for black people is way above white people (actual rates of criminality are not that different).

Conviction rates are far higher for black people.

Prison population is far higher for black people.

Deaths during arrest and in custody are far higher for black people.

Instead of facing up to this, you obfuscate and dissemble. You try and find possible reasons why it can't be due to systemic racism. You try really, really hard to put it down to something else. This says much. This tells us that you have pre-existing opinions that you want to maintain. I know from personal experience of Eastern Europe, from the experience of black people in eastern Europe, and from observation of political and cultural norms in that part of the world - racism is endemic and thinking is akin to how it was here 20 years ago.

[Gilrandir]

There are indisputable facts:

Arrest rates for black people is way above white people (actual rates of criminality are not that different).

Conviction rates are far higher for black people.

Prison population is far higher for black people.

Deaths during arrest and in custody are far higher for black people.

Instead of facing up to this, you obfuscate and dissemble. You try and find possible reasons why it can't be due to systemic racism.


Show me my post where I denied it. You must have mixed me up with someone else.

What I consistently tried to argue is that police brutality should be punished but making a saint and a martyr out of a hardened criminal is another extermity many people indulge in. Irrespective of the race of the victim.




You try really, really hard to put it down to something else. This says much. This tells us that you have pre-existing opinions that you want to maintain.

All of us have pre-existing opinions. And you too. Or does your mind change with the rising and the setting of a few suns?

My pre-existing opinion is that everyone should be treated equally and perpetrators should be punished and their race shouldn't be an issue. But as the case of OJ Simpson showed, it is only a wishful thinking.



I know from personal experience of Eastern Europe, from the experience of black people in eastern Europe, and from observation of political and cultural norms in that part of the world - racism is endemic and thinking is akin to how it was here 20 years ago.

Racism is in evidence everywhere so there is no point in singling out some region of the world. But if we try to implicate personal experience, I can counterpose mine.

When I was in America as an exchange student and lived in the dorms, I met a local black student in the corridor every now and then. When he saw me he exclaimed "Hey, Russia!" every time, although I explained more than once that I was from Ukraine. What would he say if I exclaimed "Hey, Nigeria/Congo/Cameroon/Gabon?" But did I do it? No, I kept smiling and explaining. Was it racism/xenophobia/arrogance of that student?

In your accusations I see the reverberations of a witchhunt that has started in the world after Floyd's murder.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/news/nba-announcer-fired-over-controversial-all-lives-matter-tweet/a9a50198-4b52-4cb7-a800-e0ffacb3302d

[ReluctantSamurai]

making a saint and a martyr out of a hardened criminal is another extermity many people indulge in

This statement is just another example of arrogant profiling, so prevalent in today's society. If this 'once a criminal, always a criminal' attitude were true, then many of today's professional athlete's could easily be lumped into that category. There are many athletes who came from very rough neighborhoods who were gang-bangers, drug users & pushers, and have done time in some way, shape or form. Yet, these athletes learned from their mistakes and went on to become good fathers, husbands, and role models. This kind of story is, of course, not limited to athletes, but the premise is still the same...not letting one's past determine your present or future.

This 'saint out of a hardened criminal' is exactly the same rhetoric being used by the MPD:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/


The June 1, 2020, letter by Kroll, whom Snopes could not reach for this report, inspired a wave of claims online about Floyd’s alleged arrests and incarcerations before his death — mostly among people who seemed to be searching for evidence that either the actions by the Minneapolis police officer who choked Floyd were justified, or memorials to honor him were unnecessary.


It fits into what psychologists have called the just-world hypothesis, which is a cognitive bias where people believe that the world is just and orderly, and people get what they deserve. It is difficult for people to believe that bad things can happen to good people or to people who don’t deserve it. This is because if people know that these things do happen, they have to decide whether they want to do something about it or sit by silently knowing that there is injustice happening around them.


I don’t trust the motivations of the folks bringing this forward. … Of course they’re asking, ‘Why isn’t [Floyd’s criminal history] covered in the major media?’ And it’s because it’s not relevant to this kind of story. What happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis has nothing to do with what happened to him, what he did, in 2007.


We shouldn’t conflate the complexity of a person’s life with an event that ended with their life being lost — those moments and that time is relevant, but not a criminal conviction from years prior because this is supposedly a country where, when you’ve served your sentence, you’re now able to go rebuild your life, as what he was trying to do.


In January 2013, after Floyd was paroled for the aggravated robbery, people who knew him said he returned to Houston’s Third Ward “with his head on right.” He organized events with local pastors, served as a mentor for people living in his public housing complex, and was affectionately called “Big Floyd” or “the O.G.” (original gangster) as a title of respect for someone who’d learned from his experiences. Then in 2014, Floyd, a father of five, decided to move to Minneapolis to find a new job and start a new chapter.

Dying with your face pinned to a street pavement, because you supposedly tried to pass a counterfeit $20 bill, is a really shitty way to die, and what you did 13yrs ago should have no bearing on the manner of your death. But all too often, the color of one's skin does have a bearing on these types of police brutality, one more death in a long trail stretching back decades. Enough is enough, which is the point about the BLM movement you continually gloss over. Stop bitching that the 'poster child' of this movement has a criminal past.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The wonder isn't that BLM is protesting and trying to turn society on its ear -- it is their patience for mostly doing so in non-violent manner and with as much respect for the law as they are displaying.

Heard Limbaugh bloviating that BLM was "not about civil rights" but was about marxist "socialism."

I found myself wondering why he thought the latter obviated the former, and thinking to myself "OF COURSE they would turn towards Marxism, it is not as though the current system and the current two parties have done them much of a favor after all."

[Gilrandir]

This statement is just another example of arrogant profiling, so prevalent in today's society. If this 'once a criminal, always a criminal' attitude were true, then many of today's professional athlete's could easily be lumped into that category.


In the case of Floyd, it is not "once" a criminal, but like "half a dozen times a criminal". While it is possible to agree to "errare humanum est" when it happens once, the same logic can't be applied to numerous repeated felonies.



This 'saint out of a hardened criminal' is exactly the same rhetoric being used by the MPD:


In communicating with non-authentic speakers it is strongly advisable to reduce the usage of acronyms to the minimum. I don't know what are the MPD. The dictionary gave tons of possible options starting with Multiple Personality Disorder down to Maintenance Planning Document with Microwave Power Device and Map Pictorial Display in between.



Dying with your face pinned to a street pavement, because you supposedly tried to pass a counterfeit $20 bill, is a really shitty way to die, and what you did 13yrs ago should have no bearing on the manner of your death. But all too often, the color of one's skin does have a bearing on these types of police brutality, one more death in a long trail stretching back decades. Enough is enough, which is the point about the BLM movement you continually gloss over. Stop bitching that the 'poster child' of this movement has a criminal past.

Like I said, being squinted one way gives a distorted overall picture of a human pesonality. Today people tend to focus on one aspect and play down the other. All I do is try to consider both. And I would say it if the victim was white as well. For me all lives matter.

[Idaho]

Racism is in evidence everywhere so there is no point in singling out some region of the world. But if we try to implicate personal experience, I can counterpose mine.

When I was in America as an exchange student and lived in the dorms, I met a local black student in the corridor every now and then. When he saw me he exclaimed "Hey, Russia!" every time, although I explained more than once that I was from Ukraine. What would he say if I exclaimed "Hey, Nigeria/Congo/Cameroon/Gabon?" But did I do it? No, I kept smiling and explaining. Was it racism/xenophobia/arrogance of that student?

Wow. I didn't realise you'd been subjected to such devastating and systemic racism. And that this legitimately underpinned your prejudice and life experience... Honestly that example is pathetic. One idiot person trolling you (or maybe just being geographically clueless like 95% of Americans) is presented as countervailing material for 400 years of systemic abuse and marginalisation?

[Gilrandir]

Wow. I didn't realise you'd been subjected to such devastating and systemic racism. And that this legitimately underpinned your prejudice and life experience... Honestly that example is pathetic. One idiot person trolling you (or maybe just being geographically clueless like 95% of Americans) is presented as countervailing material for 400 years of systemic abuse and marginalisation?

You missed the point. It was to show that personal experience may be misleading in trying to gauge the level of racism anywhere.

And my prejudice is against being biased in any direction: both against denying racist implications and against seeing them in every single case, both against ignoring racial issues and against swooping down on people who believe that all lives matter (like that NBA announcer).

[ReluctantSamurai]

I don't know what are the MPD

Minneapolis Police Department, who employed the four officers responsible for George Floyd's death. Uhmm...if you had read the article I provided in the link, what MPD meant would've become self-evident:inquisitive:


the same logic can't be applied to numerous repeated felonies.

You continually fixate on the fact that George Floyd wasn't a model citizen (far from it), and therefore doesn't deserve to be the 'poster child' of the BLM, nor deserved to buried in a manner chosen by his family. It could have just as easily been Breonna Taylor, or Ahmaud Arbery, or any of thousands of black individuals who have been killed by police brutality and white supremacists. To hide behind 'all lives matter' is simply a smokescreen to hide your lack of understanding of what BLM really means. Of course all lives matter, but seemingly some matter less to you. And of course it's impossible to truly understand what it's like to be a black person if your skin color is white.


it is not as though the current system and the current two parties have done them much of a favor after all

And it's going to be a very long struggle to change that system, a struggle that will probably continue longer than my remaining time, unfortunately.....

[Gilrandir]

Minneapolis Police Department, who employed the four officers responsible for George Floyd's death.

So now to say something that MPD said is like saying something that Hitler said? Why don't you then disband it and hire totally new people if all of them are so vile?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Why don't you then disband it and hire totally new people if all of them are so vile?

Now you are just putting words into my mouth that I never said. Obviously I don't have that kind of power, but if I did, what I would do is to put in place a system outside of local authorities that reviews every single officer who accumulates a number of misconduct complaints (as Derek Chauvin did), and an accounting of the $193.3 million dollars USD that is allotted for their budget to see if that money is being well spent. And by well spent I mean is violent crime being controlled, are there programs in place that involve the community in police work, is there a y-o-y decline in complaints against the police department, etc. Perhaps then, situations like the George Floyd killing don't happen.


So now to say something that MPD said is like saying something that Hitler said?

Strawman argument. Is the Ford Motor Company a fascist sympathizer because Henry Ford was? C'mon man.....:rolleyes:

[Gilrandir]

Strawman argument. Is the Ford Motor Company a fascist sympathizer because Henry Ford was? C'mon man.....:rolleyes:

That's what I was trying to say. I have my opinion and I don't know what MPD or any other PD think.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I wasn't trying to compare your thought process with the MPD, nor accusing you of being fascist. Just read the article, if you haven't already. Sorry if your disdain for the messenger is distracting you from getting the message. :shrug:

[Montmorency]

I recommend this article on BLM protests in small-town America for its truly striking accounts of sentiment and courage there. Unfortunately the victim-blaming attitudes of the "moderates" expressed here are too common, including in the Backroom.
Idaho
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/bethel-ohio-black-lives-matter-protest


Lois Dennis started teaching second grade in the village of Bethel, Ohio — official population just under 2,800 — back in 1976. People in town call her Mrs. Dennis. And that’s the name people used online when they started denouncing what happened that Sunday afternoon in June when Bethel made national news for an explosion of violence on its streets: I can’t believe they did that to Mrs. Dennis.

Lois’s adult daughter, Andrea, was visiting from Chicago. Earlier in the week, they’d heard that local substitute history teacher Alicia Gee was planning a small demonstration in Bethel in solidarity with Black Lives Matter. They made some signs on poster board, and Lois put on a blue T-shirt with “I TEACH” and the Superman logo.

They parked at the middle school and began walking east on Plane Street, the main thoroughfare through the village. “That’s when we were accosted by the counterprotesters,” Andrea recalled. “They started pushing us, being aggressive, yelling at us. We couldn’t believe it. We were stunned.”

On one side of the street, they saw around 50 Bethel residents — teachers, city council members, hairdressers, retirees — who’d shown up for the BLM demonstration. On the other, there were hundreds of people, including representatives from four different biker gangs, who, at the invitation of a local construction worker, had come to “protect” the town from looters and rioters and rumored antifa. Ultimately, the number of people “uptown,” as Bethel residents refer to the center of the village, swelled to over 800.

Watching footage of the day, you can see the energy grow darker and heavier. You can hear a man yell “you came to the wrong fucking town,” a woman scream “you’re supporting the goddamn niggers,” another man threaten to “break your fucking jaw, bitch.” You can see rifles and handguns and a literal bag full of baseball bats. You can see a woman in a pink sweatshirt repeatedly calling a Black woman the n-word. You can see people grabbing sign after sign from the pro-BLM demonstrators and ripping them to shreds. You can see a biker come up behind Nick Reardon and punch him directly in the skull. And you can see the police officers watching the encounter do nothing.

“People were screaming at us to go back where we came from,” Anwen Darcy, who attended the demonstration with her mom and sister, recalled. “But I was looking around, and I saw Mrs. Dennis, who’d been a teacher for 30 years. I saw my mom, who’d been on the PTA for years and served as the drama director. I saw the woman who ran all the prom fundraisers and a city councilman. The people yelling at us weren’t from here, because if they were, they would’ve known we were home.”

When Lois and Andrea first entered the scene, someone yanked Lois’s sign and tore it in half. She didn’t recognize that person, or any of the others pushing her around. But later, once she’d made it to the rest of the demonstrators, she looked across the street. Like everyone else, she saw people she knew. She got in a “stare down,” as her daughter later described, with one of her former colleagues.

“Lois, I cannot believe you’re here,” the other teacher yelled.

Andrea and her mom knew it was time to go. When they arrived home, Lois walked straight to the backyard to debrief with her husband and drink a glass of water. Andrea thought her mom would be mad at her. But Lois was resolute. “I wanted to be there,” she said. “I needed to be there.”

Lois Dennis needed to be there, she later told me, because when she was a kid, growing up 30 minutes away in Ripley, Ohio, she would spend her summers at the local pool. From that pool, she could see a nearby hillside. And on that hillside, silently watching the kids in the pool, were her Black classmates. The schools weren’t segregated. But private pools still could be. “I never questioned or asked why. That’s why I want to stand with Black Lives Matter — that sort of quiet racism, that’s accepted for so many years, and never questioned.”

A lot of people have stories like Lois’s. Some of those stories are about how a place like Bethel, whose official slogan is “small town, big heart,” have ignored or left unexamined years of overt and covert racism. But others have different stories: of what it felt like to be the only Black person, the only Filipino family, the only mixed kid in your class. Stories of isolation, and fear, and of trying to make yourself invisible.

The people who showed up to “protect” the town say a Black Lives Matter demonstration doesn’t belong in a place like Bethel, Ohio. There’s no need, they say, for those sorts of conversations. Others blame the demonstrators for giving Bethel a bad name: for the dozens of articles in the national press, the outsiders flooding local Facebook comment sections, the Wikipedia entry for the village briefly changed to describe it as “composed of many, many racists.” After what happened on June 14, the village instituted a curfew — the first anyone in town can remember.

“I’ve known Lois Dennis and her husband my whole life,” Andrew Stober, who runs the Facebook Group “Bethel Bitching Together,” told me. “I love them and respect them. But was it really the right thing to do, bringing that protest here? It’s okay to have one of those in the city, but in a predominantly white town — what they were doing was basically doing was inviting racists in.”

If there hadn’t been a protest, the reasoning goes, there wouldn’t have been a problem, and everything in Bethel would’ve been like it always has been: just fine. But what happened on that Sunday afternoon showed just how unsustainable that belief has become.

Bethel is at once wholly singular and totally indistinguishable from hundreds of other towns of its size and stature scattered across the United States. You can still buy a home, a pretty big one, for under $100,000, and one of several foreclosed properties for significantly less. There’s one high school, one middle school, one Ben Franklin five-and-dime — where people go for everything from quilting supplies to Halloween costumes — and one feed store.

It feels like there’s about one church per person, but none of them have many young people anymore. In 2016, 68.4% of the county voted for Trump. The last time the county went for a Democrat in a presidential election, it was for Lyndon B. Johnson. There’s an old movie theater in downtown Bethel, opened in 1938. For years, it was the pride of the village. In 2015, a Kickstarter to raise enough money to buy a digital projector stalled out at $2,400. Now there’s just a fading Ant-Man poster. There used to be a local paper, but that got absorbed into a regional one. There used to be a solid grocery store, but that’s turned into a Save-a-Lot, a low-cost cousin to Grocery Outlet.

“We’ve got the trifecta,” one resident said. “Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Family Dollar.” “On the main drag, there’s always a business trying to make it,” Laurie Jones-Dick, who’s lived in town since 1977, told me. “It’ll be there for a few months, maybe a few years. But then it’s gone.”

None of this is a new story in rural America. But to those who’ve watched Bethel’s slow decline, that doesn’t mean it isn’t deeply felt. A lot of the young people grow up and go away. Others stay but struggle to find work outside the schools or the service industry. People don’t talk a lot about the opioids or the meth, but everyone knows someone who’s died in the last decade from one or the other.

Community members fought for years to get a levy passed to support the village’s schools. When the local pool was sold to the city, the insurance costs were too high, and officials shut it down entirely. A smattering of events, fairs, and festivals in the area have been cut for lack of funding. There’s still a Christmas parade, but the remaining activities are church-affiliated in some way. A few years ago, the village’s one non-chain restaurant, the Blue Haven, famous for its homemade pies, shut its doors. “After Sunday, people keep saying, you know, if the Blue Haven was still around, all of this never would’ve happened,” Andrea Dennis told me.

“There aren’t many events to look forward to anymore,” Anwen Darcy explained. “Things like Pioneer Days or whatever, it might not sound like a big deal, but that’s the stuff that knits a community together. Now it’s just a bunch of people loosely living together in the same place.”

And that place is a distinctly Ohioan version of Appalachia. As one local saying goes, it’s “as far North as you can be and not be South, and as far South as you can be and not be North.” Several homes in the uptown area, as the center of the village is called, were stops on the Underground Railroad. In 1844, former US senator Thomas Morris, a Bethel resident, ran for vice president under a third party advocating to abolish slavery. The first mayor of the town was the father of President Ulysses S. Grant.

Still, when the Klan revived across America in the 1910s, more than 1,000 people joined in surrounding Clermont County, and local newspapers recounted its activities the same way they’d cover the work of, say, the local Red Cross. Nearly a century later, KKK literature, some of it aimed at recruitment, began popping up all over Bethel — including on the doorstep of James and Olivia Hundley and their six children. “This is something I would expect to tell my children that their ancestors experienced,” Olivia Hundley said in 2005. “Nothing that they would actually have to experience themselves.” These days, few in town can remember that family, or when they moved.

On the bus to away football games, a former cheerleader reported, the players would talk about “beating those niggers” on the opposing team. An administrator at a local school, according to one former teacher, used to brag about going to the “race riots” in the ‘60s with baseball bats. Another teacher posted on Facebook that just this year, a white student told a student of color that “his family would have owned her,” while another raised his fist, in class, and yelled “white power!”

Guadalupe Rodriguez, who graduated from high school this spring, arrived in Bethel in third grade. “For years I would tell myself that people didn’t really do much, they just made fun of my name,” she said. “But I guess I just got used to it. Now that I’ve grown up, I realize how differently I was treated. There are so many people in the community who supported me, but then there was this whole other group of people that just didn’t think I should exist.”

The shock of these stories has faded for many white residents — or has just been ignored. They maintain that Bethel is not racist; there’s no need for any fundamental reexamination of how power and race align in a town that’s more than 96% white. “Mayhem, racism, and anger does not describe this village in any way,” Village Council member Bryan Coogan told me in an email. “I have lived all over this great country and moved to Bethel to stay away from just the sort of stuff I just described.”

As Joe Manning, a local ironworker upset by the demonstration, put it on Facebook: “There hasn’t been any trouble in this town until all this shit started. I just don’t understand why people don’t just keep to themselves.”

Alicia Gee, who helped organize the Black Lives Matter demonstration in Bethel, Ohio.

Alicia Gee has chunky auburn bangs, oversized glasses with thick red frames, and the general look of a high school art teacher on a teen CW comedy. Like many people who showed up for the demonstration that she helped plan on Sunday, she’s lived her entire life in Bethel, marrying her high school sweetheart and raising two children.

Apart from substitute teaching, she has served as a children’s minister, worked for Girl Scouts of Western Ohio, completed her master’s in education, and, most recently, helps run a local art collective. She’s a third-generation Bethel resident, and her father, Ron Dunn, is a member of the Village Council.

When Gee started putting together the idea for a demonstration, she had been inspired by the small gatherings and vigils in towns just as small as Bethel, and just as conservative. But Gee was also mindful about how her community would view the event. “We knew that whatever we chose to do had to be simple,” she said, “but we also wanted to make it a big tent to include people.” They were careful to label the gathering as a demonstration — a way of showing up in solidarity. Not a protest.

The organizers didn’t want to limit the gathering to people they already knew — which meant posting it on the Facebook Group that has filled the vacuum left by the departure of the local news. Gee posted the announcement late at night. The next morning when she woke up, there were messages on the post and in her inbox with the same theme: You can’t bring this into our town.

At this point, protests and demonstrations had been happening all over the United States for weeks. Depending on where someone got their news, and how much credence they gave to Facebook rumors, it was easy to believe that such gatherings would devolve into riot and ruin. “There’s this common narrative,” Gee explained, “that if someone stands for Black Lives, then it’s automatically a ‘protest.’ And if it’s a protest, then it’s automatically a riot, which is automatically looting, and busing in people who will swarm the town and destroy it.”

And the antifa rumors that had been working their way through small towns didn’t help. “I had a conversation with the mayor, and he wanted to know if any of the organizers were antifa,” Gee told me. “And he had this very confused look on his face when I told him that we’re all against fascism, but antifa isn’t, like, an organized group the way that he thought it was.”

When Gee was planning the demonstration, she imagined there would be a few people who showed up with Trump flags. Maybe someone would throw a soda at them. That was before she heard about the bikers.

The plans for a Black Lives Matter event pissed a lot of people off. But one of the people it upset was Lonnie Meade. Meade grew up in Bethel, installs floors, and, in his spare time, is a pretty successful drag racer. He posts frequently to Facebook, mixing memes about political correctness with photos of his cars and young daughter.

Several people told me they remembered Meade from high school in the ‘90s. After school, there wasn’t much else to do, and kids would put together fights in local barns. Lonnie was one of them. (Meade did not respond to multiple requests for an interview, other than to say that the fights were with boxing gloves, and that “I don’t want to speak to any media as a conservative white male that loves his country, the media twist it as if you’re a white supremacist or a ‘counter protesters’ and I am neither.”)

When Meade read about the demonstration, he began broadcasting on Facebook Live. “Sunday at 3 o’clock, they’re supposed to be bringing a Black Lives Matter,” he said. “I’m gonna tell you right now, I hope that everybody that feels like me, I hope we outnumber those people a thousand to one, and not let that shit happen here in our little town of Bethel.”

“You’re not going to bring hate to our town,” he continued. “We don’t have hate in it right now. You’re gonna bring hate.”

On the morning of the protest, Jason Eblin took the pulpit at Northside Baptist, a congregation that, most weeks, hovers between 40 and 50 people. Eblin moved to Bethel three years ago when the lead pastor at the church, Ben Hurst, was paralyzed in an accident. Eblin had served as associate pastor ever since. His wife grew up here, and her family all lives in town, but, he told me, “I’m still an outsider.”

Eblin knew that if he talked about Black Lives Matter in his sermon that Sunday, he would get “in some hot water.” But he also thought it would be irresponsible, a dereliction of duty, for the church not to address it. “I’ve been told that maybe this isn’t really the best time to talk about it,” he told me. “But how can we ignore it? Jesus spoke out about racism and prejudice, so if he can talk about it, so can we.”

In his sermon, Eblin said he’d seen one of Lonnie’s videos and heard people saying that there wasn’t anything wrong with Bethel — that everyone loves everyone. But then he recalled his own research as he talked to people before moving to the town. “It was confirmed by people, even in this church, that Bethel is known for its churches,” he said, “but also for being a racist town.”

“Is that an unfair statement about this town?” he asked his congregation. “Well, that’s its reputation. And if it’s unfounded, then what better way of trying to correct it than saying it’s not who we are? If someone’s trying to go through peacefully and say ‘Black lives matter’ [...] then say ‘yeah, Black lives matter.’ And I hope I matter to you. Because we all matter to the Lord.”

The bikers started showing up in Bethel a few hours after Eblin stepped down from the pulpit. They parked their motorcycles and began pacing the sidewalks. Meade went live on Facebook. “What I’m asking for is to come up here and protect your community,” he said. “I don’t know what’s going to go down for sure. I’ve seen three or four antifa people walking together with backpacks, scoping out the crowds and seeing what we have. It’s a pretty freaky situation, I won’t lie to you.”

The post, like the one before, was shared hundreds of times.

While Meade was broadcasting, Gee was out on the country roads, on her way back from picking up Guadalupe Rodriguez who lives, in her words, “in the middle of nowhere.” They didn’t have good service, but Gee started getting calls from people in town, saying the bikers were already there. Organizers made the decision to move the demonstration a block west, hoping to avoid confrontation.

As Gee set up water and Gatorade, Rodriguez, who’d been designated as the official documentarian, started taking photos. A few dozen demonstrators trickled in, and Gee walked back and forth, greeting them. Her dad was standing on the far end of the block and saw a group of eight “burly-looking men” headed their way. “Here they come,” he yelled.

At first, it was just a few dozen people headed their way. Then it was a few hundred. “At that point, something came over me,” Gee recalled. “I just thought, if this is what we have to do, this is what we have to do. I’m not running away.”

The bikers stayed on the other side of the street for a few minutes, but then they started crossing the street, encroaching more and more on the demonstration space. The handful of police officers there to supervise spaced themselves throughout the crowd, but could do little to keep them separated.

“It felt like a swarm,” Gee said. And in the middle of it was a white car with two women standing out of a moon roof, recording everything. One of those women, Kelly Fogwell, had gone to high school with Lonnie Meade. After graduation, she’d left town to teach and eventually go to grad school, but had returned home in 2014 to live with her mom, Kathy Newman, who stood beside her. They’d decided, even before the bikers arrived, that they’d stay in their car as an additional layer of protecting themselves from exposure to COVID-19.

Newman had grown up as one of nine kids on a farm in Kentucky without a phone or running water. She eventually made her way to college at the University of Cincinnati, where, in 1970, right after Kent State, she participated in a peace march through the streets of the city. “We didn’t know if we were going to get shot,” she recalled. She stepped back from political organizing while she raised her kids, but has reentered activism over the past decade. “I’ve been to a lot of protests, and most of them are very boring,” she said. “Especially since I don’t really like chanting.”

In the weeks leading up to the demonstration, Newman had been watching what had happened to protesters in Seattle, and Minneapolis, and New York. “I’ve watched videos on how to hold your hands if you get arrested, and what your legal rights are as a protester,” she told me. She got a gallon of milk, found an old paintball mask, and threw them both in the car, just in case.

But their problem wasn’t the police — that much was immediately apparent. Videos of the event, now viewed millions of times, showed men in motorcycle vests embroidered with BIKERS FOR TRUMP with baseball bats menacing everyone in their path. Some people yelled go home and yanked signs, while others hurled slurs and attempted to knock phones from the hands of those filming. If you were a demonstrator, just standing in place made you a target.

“I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve looked at so many faces and seen zero empathy,” Anwen Darcy said. “There was just no recognition that they were speaking to other human beings. We were just an obstacle to them. And it was so bizarre to have a guy in a confederate bandana tell me that I better watch where I go, because he’s going to take me to his truck and tear me apart. I heard it in the moment, and I was like, Whatever. But then you think about it when you get home, and you’re like, Oh, this is what he meant by that.”

“I’ve never been in the presence of so much palpable hate,” Laurie Jones-Dick, Darcy’s mother, said. “It was like the air was throbbing.”

When Anwen Darcy was at the demonstration, getting called “a smug Princess Leia bitch” (her hair was in buns), she noticed there was a particular type of sign that seemed to enrage people on the other side: anything to do with “white privilege.”

“A lot of people have gotten something, whether it’s a little house or a truck or a piece of land, and they’re happy about it, and they don’t want it taken away,” she told me. To them, the protests signify a move to take that little bit that they do have, that they’ve worked so long to achieve.

“People said to me, ‘I’ve had cops follow me in stores. How dare you say I’ve had white privilege?’” Darcy said. “But if they get drunk and disorderly, they don’t get killed. They get tased and put in a drunk tank. They can’t see that sliver of privilege that’s still theirs. So see the idea of white privilege as a threat and devaluing their experience.”

“I get that they feel lost and terrified,” Darcy continued. “But I also wish that they could funnel that into something other than beating up women and children in the street.”

But other residents think that the people lining the street — including, in some cases, the bikers — weren’t mad or scared. They were just trying to protect the town from what they perceived as a very real outside threat. Andrew Stober, the moderator of the Facebook Group “Bethel Bitching Together,” knows that antifa stands for antifascist. He thinks that members of the group show up after BLM protests, vandalize and loot, and give BLM a bad name — and there was no reason to believe they wouldn’t show up in Bethel, too.

Stober started “Bethel Bitching Together” last year as a joke when another Facebook Group, “Bethel Banding Together,” seemed to devolve into, well, bitching. In his group, he lets people talk about whatever’s on their minds. He doesn’t moderate much, but has a zero tolerance policy, he said, for slurs and racists. He likes to think of himself as a pretty open-minded, curious guy. He went to college. He’s been to seven countries. He’s a volunteer wrestling coach for elementary school kids. He lived for years in Over-the-Rhine, the predominantly Black area of Cincinnati. One time he got robbed and nearly stabbed in downtown Cincinnati, but “instead of being a racist about it,” he just went down to the block where he had been attacked and got a job as a bouncer. These days, he spends his time at his fishing camp on the Ohio River, running his window cleaning business, and hanging out with his son.

In the week leading up to the protest, Stober saw Facebook posts alleging that antifa had plans to appear in the area. He couldn’t confirm them, but thought the threat should be taken seriously. “When antifa threatens to burn down stuff within two miles of your town, don’t you go down and protect businesses?” he asked me. “I saw Lonnie’s videos, and I was like, Hey, you know what? Good for you. Protect your town. He wasn’t saying anything racist. He was just standing up and saying that stuff’s not gonna come here.”

Stober said that if he still owned property uptown, where the demonstration took place, he would’ve been there. Instead, he stayed home to work in the garden. But his fellow wrestling coach Jeffrey Botts was there, guarding his family’s veterinary practice, and Stober applauded him. “We worked our whole lives for these businesses,” he said. “God bless those people for protecting their own stuff.”

He hates that Bethel’s name has been smeared — especially by people who’ve moved away. “It’s hard to see the posts,” he said, “talking about this good old boy mentality, saying we’re all rednecks. But I’m a college-educated, world-traveling window cleaner. These people say they’re so glad they left Bethel, that they have interracial children and now feel like they can’t come back, and I’m like, Be the change, don’t be the problem.”

“They walked away, started a life somewhere, haven’t been back in so many years,” Stober continued. “It’s easy to criticize from afar. I don’t know one person who’s really racist. Do I think people get singled out by the police? I do. But I don’t think it happens in Bethel.”

In one of Lonnie Meade’s Facebook videos describing and defending what happened in Bethel, he mentions a Black student from his high school — someone, he said, whom he never had any problems with. That high school student went by Ernie back then. Now he goes by Ray, and he lives in Cincinnati with his girlfriend and young son.

When I reached Ray Riley in the week after the demonstration, he’d watched about as much of the videos as he felt was necessary. But he’d had years to think about his time in Bethel as the only Black kid, the sort of person whom people like Meade bring up as evidence of their lack of racism.

“My time there was like the definition of the phrase ‘social isolation,’” he told me. “I had a couple of people that I hung out with from time to time, one from a town over. But I had very few friends in the actual school.” He arrived in Bethel in middle school and moved in with his stepdad, who was white. “As far as race relations go, he wasn’t the best informed,” Riley said. “He wasn’t savvy enough to understand that I wouldn’t be living in the same America as he would. He tried to raise me to go through life the same way he did. And that just wasn’t the way it worked.”

Riley described himself as a big, athletic guy in high school, which is part of why, he says, people didn’t bully him physically. “But they bullied me in their own ways,” he said. The fathers of the girls he dated didn’t like him. “I got the feeling that if I wasn’t a minority, they wouldn’t have been quite as opposed,” he said. “Sometimes there are just, let’s say, subtle hints you can pick up on.”

“I was dismissed as kind of stupid by my teachers,” he said. “Which I don’t think I am.” He remembers Meade as someone on the periphery, always trying to start a fight, including a few times with him. It never happened, but it didn’t surprise him that Meade was behind what happened on Sunday — or that the rest of the town reacted the way it did.

“I knew they were going to run into trouble,” he said. “The question was how much? There’s an undercurrent of hatred in that small town, in all those surrounding towns. I saw it. I swam in it. I survived it. I didn’t exactly thrive in it. The first chance I got, I ran like hell. Because they don’t like the other, and I was always the other.”

They can’t understand themselves as racist, Riley said, because they cannot empathize with the experience of it. They can’t see it because they haven’t felt it or listened when others described it. Their closest experience is hearing the phrase “Black lives matter” and thinking that it is actually racist against white people.

“They’ve been taught all their lives that if you work hard, everything’s gonna be just fine,” Riley said. “But they see now that they worked hard, and did the work, and they didn’t get what was promised. They’re so mad, and they turn that hatred inward and feel inadequate. But Trump says, ‘No, I can ease your pain. These people over there, they’re to blame. It’s their fault.’”

“People have been telling you that your bigotry is bad, and you should feel bad,” he continued. “But Trump is there to tell you: It’s good.”

It wasn’t until the end of our conversation that Riley started telling me all the things that had happened to him as a child in Bethel. He listed them offhandedly, like reciting the groceries he needed at the store. The police had stopped him dozens of times without cause. An officer used to refer to him as “Tyrone” every time he saw him. One time, when Riley entered a restaurant in a nearby town, a white dude started singing Dixie and replacing the words with racial slurs. Another time he was riding his 10-speed and turned around in a driveway, and saw someone come out onto the porch. It was one of his classmates. He started yelling: “Get out of my driveway, nigger.”

“I could tell you stories for hours,” he said. “At the time, I didn’t fully grasp how wrong it was. It was just my life.”

There was no local television news to document what happened in Bethel on that Sunday afternoon. Only video from phones, which spread quickly on Facebook, on Twitter, and on YouTube, eventually sparking dozens of stories in the national and local press. “A peaceful protester in Bethel, Ohio was sucker-punched in the head right in front of police officers,” Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown tweeted, “and they did nothing about it.”

The day after the demonstration, a smattering of people, including two Black men who grew up in the area, drove in from out of town. Some talked at length with Meade and shook hands. The press took photos. But it didn’t feel like anything had been fixed. Not even close.

Members of the Historical Society are mad. Coworkers are mad. Quilting circle members are mad. Family members are mad. But some people are sorry, too. Andrea told me that one of the counterprotesters who refused to leave her and her mom alone had reached out to arrange a phone call. Others have messaged her on Facebook to say, I saw my aunt in that video, and I’m so sorry. Andrea’s brother, a former wrestling coach, coached the son of one of the men who was most vocal toward his mom at the protest. That man has since apologized.

“I’m open to accepting these apologies,” Andrea said. “But this is about deeper issues. It’s not, like, an individual thing. People have said that we should press charges, but I dunno. I feel bad. All over the country, they’re trash-talking Bethel, saying we should bulldoze the entire town. And that really hurts.”

The local pastors, including Pastor Eblin, convened a walk through the village, praying over the sights of conflict. Eblin’s co-pastor, Ben Hurst, wrote an op-ed for USA Today, claiming that in his two decades in Bethel, he had “not witnessed any kind of racist comment publicly or privately.” Their disparate reactions to the demonstration sparked a much larger dialogue between the two men. “We’ve had to have some heart-to-heart conversations,” Eblin told me. “Because he knows these people. He’s been here for 20 years and is able to say, Hey, we can do better.”

“The town’s called Bethel,” Eblin pointed out. “It’s a town of meaning. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this is happening in a place with the name of the House of God. I just wish people would’ve seen God’s people shining, and not that hate.”

“No one’s apologized to me,” Gee said. “And the Village Council hasn’t apologized or articulated any real condemnation of the actions that were perpetrated on us. There’s a lot of calls for discussion right now, but the call is kind of like, hey, person who was abused, you should sit down with your abuser. The people who are calling for us to sit down together, they’re not recognizing that.”

Like everyone else I spoke with, Gee would do it all over again. There’s a lot of processing, and reckoning — particularly among the white participants — that what they experienced was just a brief window into what people of color experience navigating a world still shaped, in every corner, by white supremacy.

With time, Gee said, they’ll move forward. “This is such a country thing to say, but in the big city, if you’re an organizer, you might know a bunch of people, and have a fair amount of connections, but you don’t know everyone. Here in the village, I know everyone. I know where people live and I taught their children — that very easily opens that door for conversation and change.”

“These conversations are important,” she continued. “They’ve moved from you were attacked to what does this mean? They haven’t been happening for decades. But here we are. And it’s time.”●




My assumption is the contrary: if the police in general maltreats blacks, so black policemen are also held responsible for such malpractice.

Black police qua police? I agree.


If there is no registration for gun ownership there is no possible way to correctly gauge the number of guns owned by any race.

This information is generally accessed or estimated the same way most national gun ownership data are: voluntary survey. For example (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/)

The only other way I know of would be modeling using economic data relating to production, sales, and federal background checks.


Yet when given a choice you always opt for racial explanation?

Systematic, general, well-documented causes will tend to have more explanatory power toward consistent, convergent events than assuming random chance in any instance. In the interpretation of human affairs, the latter is usually relegated to producing humorous effect in movies.


So you have to be old and experienced to learn to condone submitting counterfeit money if you know the person who did it?

If one believes a customer has paid with counterfeit money, there are a number of approaches to take. I agree that one doesn't have to be old and experienced to realize that.


And that is why he was buried in a golden casket?

Floyd Mayweather paid for it, and Floyd's family accepted it. Why do the man's funerary arrangements bother you so much?


Being buried in gold is a sign of profound veneration. Which, in view of his criminal past he didn't deserve.

Why would anyone care what you think he deserved? Did you bury him?


1. I didn't defend Bandera. My point was and is that we should know all the details of any person and see both the bad and the good sides to him. And each person should be lauded for what good he did, and denounced for what bad he did. In the case of Bandera many people see only what they choose to, forgetting the opposite. I tried to show all sides of his personality. But it is a usual story with many other historical figures like Bohdan Kmelnitsky who fought to liberate Ukraine from Poland, but in this fight mass atrocities against the Polish and the Jews happened.

Why is such a nuanced treatment reserved to your countryman, who was definitely a pretty ruthless mass killer on par with Che Guevara. It has to be objectively certain he threatened more people with guns than Floyd did, if that's what it takes.

BLM: The murder of George Floyd is another sorry episode in our deeply unjust system of policing and governance.
Gilrandir: But he was no angel.

Anyone: Wasn't Bandera a war criminal?
Gilrandir: We have to take the good with the bad.


2. There is no criterion to judge a person to be better or worse

Well then, that's an interesting worldview. I don't understand how to make it consistent with your earlier criticism of Floyd or the likes of Zelensky or Putin though, if all those individuals are no better or worse than you.


I believe that assessing Floyd (or any other person for that matter) we should also try to see all his possible worlds and assess them. Current obsession with him tends to ignore the shadiest aspects of his personality which makes his overall portrait lop-sided.

But whose obsession is it? You're the one fixated on George Floyd as a person. If you felt so strongly you would have no shortage of alternates to Floyd to associate, yet you don't. As in,


BLM: The murder of George Floyd is another sorry episode in our deeply unjust system of policing and governance.
Gilrandir: But he was no angel.

Anyone: Wasn't Bandera a war criminal?
Gilrandir: We have to take the good with the bad.

the first case is one where the individual person is irrelevant to the purpose or activities of a movement, yet becomes more deserving of scrutiny than when the individual is the very subject. I'm just highlighting the disparate consideration you're affording.


Do you remember that ther was no racism in the USSR and all people were proclaimed equal? Moreover, the Soviet ideology contrasted the free Soviet society where all were treated the same with capitalist countries that were grounded on oppression of other races in colonies and metropolis.

The famously egalitarian Soviet Union in which non-Russians could count on the good will and protection of the Russian state. It would be truer to say everyone in the Soviet Union had free housing than that there was no racism. There was no racism in the Soviet Union the way the Western (white) working class were living in desperate poverty, waiting for their moment to rise up against the capitalist class, which is to say it was just legitimating propaganda.


In the book "Поднятая целина" by Sholokhov one of the characters (Makar Nagulnov) was a strong partisan of interracial marriages. The whole movie "Цирк" is a story of an American circus lady who had a black son and was censured and even ostracized in the USA so she had to come to the USSR where she and her son could finally find the land of milk and honey. Soviet leaders often met with the leaders of African ex-colonies and supported them in all possible ways. African students studied in Soviet universities. So the official doctrine was anything but racist.

The documentation of formal and cultural racism in the Soviet Union is so overwhelming I have to believe you're trolling me.


It was the official doctrine of the Communists since the inception of the USSR. Everybody was proclaimed equal irrespective of their sex, age, race, and so on.

We were 150 years ahead of you in the Declaration of Independence, but it didn't solve that problem for posterity.


The massacre had nothing to do with inequality issues - just exterminating the useless/dangerous people. And in this respect all were equal - people with certain political views could be disposed of, irrespective of their race, nationality, sex and so on.

All the minorities Stalin massacred, deported to Siberia/Central Asia, or merely imposed legal discrimination against, are erased in this telling. And Stalin himself had a particular animosity toward Polish people.


But you forget about the difference between officially proclaimed doctrine and the actual practice. The latter included anti-semitism, the policy of eradicating national sentiment, melting all nationalities of the USSR into one ubernational entity - the Soviet people, criminal persecition of homosexuals and a lot of other things that were at odds with the officially sanctioned ideology of equality.

:inquisitive:

So - were you representing the foregoing quotes as true facts or not??? If not, why say it?

Like, I still remember a year or two ago when you (fairly) became irritated with me for using a Russian ethnic slur for Ukrainians.


Thus, representing Africa as a dangerous land in a children's poem is devoid of any racial issues. Australia, Amazonia, Indochina could be used as well if it suited the metrics of the poem. As is the way with Americans, they see race and gender where there is none.

First of all, even had the USSR had the best racial record of any society in human history that would not change the facts around this specific artifact. Iran is famously known as the land of no homosexuals whatsoever, you see, but if people were to indulge in same-sex intercourse in Iran, that activity would not somehow become conceptually titrated into something else entirely. See also, "В СССР секса нет."

You present a scenario in which the author innocuously wanted to generate a poem about wild animals and cannibals in a dangerous land, and had such a specific meter in mind that he had no choice but to go with Africa.

That's insultingly stupid.

You identify no evidence for such a process, and it is made preposterous by the inclusion of references to gorillas, sharks, and crocodiles - to fit all these words into a bare meter requires premeditation on the text. So the author almost certainly set out to write about Africa, relying on assumptions and tropes about Africa that were widespread around Europe at the time, which tropes you must acknowledge as racist. You also suggest he could also have considered writing about the Amazon, Indochina, or Australia instead, somehow not realizing that this reinforces the racism, since in all cases these were perceived as wild lands full of wild animals and similarly-wild people. How did this escape your notice?

But in the first analysis, the poem is itself racist in its actual content, and the content cannot become non-racist by appeal to convenience. Prioritizing the metrics - as if that could even possibly have been the primary consideration - to justify that content is itself racist. The author could at least have averted the overt racism by writing about a fictional place, though the very concept would have been inescapably informed by his context.


On a sidenote, I read a critic's take on feminism in Tolkien's books and the critic claimed that when Frodo and Sam went through Shelob's tunnel it was a reflection of penetration into female pudenda and the growths that were on the walls where like pubic hair.

Don't become like that in treating simple stories.

There's no symbolic transitivity here, just recognition of straight reproduction of very well-worn racist ideas. I'm saying a cigar is a cigar, you're saying maybe it's a lollipop.


And disregarding his character makes the whole picture incomplete and biased.

Rule of law is definitionally meant to operate independent of the character of individuals.


You do the same. Branding somebody as racist/nazi/obcurantist/... is a perfect move after which one doesn't have to offer any proofs of such a conclusion and may cease arguing since it is useless to try to prove something to a racist/nazi/obcurantist/... An impeccable move. Way to go.

Whether someone is a racist/Nazi/obscurantist tends to have a much greater material relevance to a person's positions and their evaluation than does their hairstyle. I'm sure you wouldn't entertain, for example:

A: Ukraine should surrender to the imperial will of Russia.
B: Isn't Putin documented paying you a million rubles to say this?
A: DEBATE ME


What I consistently tried to argue is that police brutality should be punished but making a saint and a martyr out of a hardened criminal is another extermity many people indulge in. Irrespective of the race of the victim.

Of course, we know that's not what's going on here, but let's say it were and Black Lives Matter were all about the valorous martyr George Floyd and his slaying at the hands of the dastardly lawmen. That would still be more salutary than whining about it in light of the "other extremity" of state violence and impunity.


All of us have pre-existing opinions. And you too. Or does your mind change with the rising and the setting of a few suns?

So long as we're leaning on aphorisms here, sir, when the facts change I change my mind.


My pre-existing opinion is that everyone should be treated equally and perpetrators should be punished and their race shouldn't be an issue.

In a racially-unequal society, to treat people equally the inequality must be corrected. This should strike you as trivially correct, yet you implicitly accept the maintenance of racial hierarchy when you say "their race shouldn't be an issue." It shouldn't be an issue, but it is an issue; we should remedy that, but it can't be accomplished by blusterous denial - just the opposite.


When I was in America as an exchange student and lived in the dorms, I met a local black student in the corridor every now and then. When he saw me he exclaimed "Hey, Russia!" every time, although I explained more than once that I was from Ukraine. What would he say if I exclaimed "Hey, Nigeria/Congo/Cameroon/Gabon?" But did I do it? No, I kept smiling and explaining. Was it racism/xenophobia/arrogance of that student?

It's America-centrism and a lack of global awareness, which you can and should criticize. Is it much of a hindrance for English-speaking Ukrainians though? No, of course not - they're still white (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9TS1pRmajU) after all.


In your accusations I see the reverberations of a witchhunt that has started in the world after Floyd's murder.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/news/nba-announcer-fired-over-controversial-all-lives-matter-tweet/a9a50198-4b52-4cb7-a800-e0ffacb3302d

Just like that nasty ol' McCarthyist witch hunt against Russians!


All I do is try to consider both.

To what end other than derailment? Hitler's armies burned many villages in Ukraine, yet I would be a true scumbag to interject that perhaps some of the villagers were racists, misogynists, thieves, murderers, and that consequently we should frame that likelihood alongside our criticism of anti-partisan operations.


For me all lives matter.

But do black lives matter? If you can't say black lives matter, then saying all lives matter is just a lie and a red herring to diminish the cause of justice.


You missed the point. It was to show that personal experience may be misleading in trying to gauge the level of racism anywhere.

It's a good thing that one's personal experience is not the limit of knowledge, other than in a phenomenological sense.


And my prejudice is against being biased in any direction: both against denying racist implications and against seeing them in every single case, both against ignoring racial issues and against swooping down on people who believe that all lives matter (like that NBA announcer).

You've definitely presented as being biased in one direction, so if that is something you prefer not to be you should re-assess your worldview.

You remind me of the Russian-language radio host who vehemently objected to the sight of "white boys and girls kneeling for a black."


So now to say something that MPD said is like saying something that Hitler said? Why don't you then disband it and hire totally new people if all of them are so vile?

That is similar to the stated intent of the Minneapolis city council. Police departments have been disbanded before, and there have been many advocates of doing so in particular cases today as falling short of outright abolition.

I wish you had read a little about the debates in this country over the past month-and-a-half, since if you had you would have more perspective on both the extant problems and the possible solutions. They're far from parochial debates, and can give insight to civil-police relations and strategies anywhere, so you won't be bored.




The wonder isn't that BLM is protesting and trying to turn society on its ear -- it is their patience for mostly doing so in non-violent manner and with as much respect for the law as they are displaying.

Heard Limbaugh bloviating that BLM was "not about civil rights" but was about marxist "socialism."

I found myself wondering why he thought the latter obviated the former, and thinking to myself "OF COURSE they would turn towards Marxism, it is not as though the current system and the current two parties have done them much of a favor after all."

The hell of it is, if the US actually had tens of millions of Marxists (in higher proportion than in all time before, apparently) then we might be well on our way to putting paid to fascist filth like Limbaugh once and for all. If only! But he has no appreciation for the fact that most Americans want justice from and comity with his ilk, rather than revenge or revolution.

[Gilrandir]

To hide behind 'all lives matter' is simply a smokescreen to hide your lack of understanding of what BLM really means. Of course all lives matter, but seemingly some matter less to you.

That's your arbitrary opinion. Just like I might read BLM as other lives don't.




Why is such a nuanced treatment reserved to your countryman, who was definitely a pretty ruthless mass killer on par with Che Guevara. It has to be objectively certain he threatened more people with guns than Floyd did, if that's what it takes.

BLM: The murder of George Floyd is another sorry episode in our deeply unjust system of policing and governance.
Gilrandir: But he was no angel.

Anyone: Wasn't Bandera a war criminal?
Gilrandir: We have to take the good with the bad.


Aren't you tired of this Bandera squabble?

He was no angel, you are right. BUT: he spent most of his life before WWII in the Polish prison ans during WWII in the concentration camp. Mass killer from prison?

Then, to call someone a war criminal you should have a court's decision. The trial that could have done it was the Nuremberg trial. Neither UPA nor Bandera were found guilty of war crimes there.



Well then, that's an interesting worldview. I don't understand how to make it consistent with your earlier criticism of Floyd or the likes of Zelensky or Putin though, if all those individuals are no better or worse than you.


Evaluation is always subjective. For some people Putin is a god, for others a devil.




The famously egalitarian Soviet Union in which non-Russians could count on the good will and protection of the Russian state. It would be truer to say everyone in the Soviet Union had free housing than that there was no racism. There was no racism in the Soviet Union the way the Western (white) working class were living in desperate poverty, waiting for their moment to rise up against the capitalist class, which is to say it was just legitimating propaganda.
The documentation of formal and cultural racism in the Soviet Union is so overwhelming I have to believe you're trolling me.


People of other races than white in the USSR could be counted on the fingers of a hand. How can you find racist practices in a country with virtually monorace? It is like to try to calculate the number of car accidents in a village where there are no car owners.



We were 150 years ahead of you in the Declaration of Independence, but it didn't solve that problem for posterity.


See above.



All the minorities Stalin massacred, deported to Siberia/Central Asia, or merely imposed legal discrimination against, are erased in this telling. And Stalin himself had a particular animosity toward Polish people.


The latter needs a proof. But even if he did I don't see how it bears on racism. Xenophobia - perhaps, but racism?



You present a scenario in which the author innocuously wanted to generate a poem about wild animals and cannibals in a dangerous land, and had such a specific meter in mind that he had no choice but to go with Africa.

That's insultingly stupid.

You identify no evidence for such a process, and it is made preposterous by the inclusion of references to gorillas, sharks, and crocodiles - to fit all these words into a bare meter requires premeditation on the text. So the author almost certainly set out to write about Africa, relying on assumptions and tropes about Africa that were widespread around Europe at the time, which tropes you must acknowledge as racist. You also suggest he could also have considered writing about the Amazon, Indochina, or Australia instead, somehow not realizing that this reinforces the racism, since in all cases these were perceived as wild lands full of wild animals and similarly-wild people. How did this escape your notice?

But in the first analysis, the poem is itself racist in its actual content, and the content cannot become non-racist by appeal to convenience. Prioritizing the metrics - as if that could even possibly have been the primary consideration - to justify that content is itself racist. The author could at least have averted the overt racism by writing about a fictional place, though the very concept would have been inescapably informed by his context.


I offered a possible usage of Africa, you gave your take on the issue. I don't see why yours is better than mine. Even if we accept your view that Chukovsky was painting Africa as a dangerous place, why is it racist? Is saying that Queens/Harlem a dangerous place racist? I am more inclined to think that calling Africa a dangerous place is more like "everywhere outside our Soviet Motherland is dangerous".

I repeat: as long as can remember myself a Soviet kid teachers and TV were talking my ears off with stories of poor Africans who were oppressed by capitalists from Europe and poor black Americans who were tortured by KKK. And the mission of Soviet country and all its citizens is to help them in all possible ways. So talking of racism in the USSR as a part of ideology is ridiculous.




Of course, we know that's not what's going on here, but let's say it were and Black Lives Matter were all about the valorous martyr George Floyd and his slaying at the hands of the dastardly lawmen. That would still be more salutary than whining about it in light of the "other extremity" of state violence and impunity.


As I was told by Sarmatian once, you can never form an objective opinion of events which are going on in the street outside your house. You have to be geographically and emotionally removed form the epicenter to do that. While geography can be debated, emotions are often crucial. Being emotionally invested forbids you from being objective.




In a racially-unequal society, to treat people equally the inequality must be corrected. This should strike you as trivially correct, yet you implicitly accept the maintenance of racial hierarchy when you say "their race shouldn't be an issue."


As long as crimes and brutality are concerned it shouldn't. A murderer should always be a murderer. If you implicate race OJ Simpson isn't found to be one.



But do black lives matter? If you can't say black lives matter, then saying all lives matter is just a lie and a red herring to diminish the cause of justice.


I can use "black lives matter" only if after this sentence comes a continuation like "as well as other lives do".




You've definitely presented as being biased in one direction, so if that is something you prefer not to be you should re-assess your worldview.


Can I apply this conclusion and advice to yourself?



You remind me of the Russian-language radio host who vehemently objected to the sight of "white boys and girls kneeling for a black."

I support it when a black deserves it. Not just because he is black. Otherwise it is like on March 8 people of the USSR congratulated women on being women.



That is similar to the stated intent of the Minneapolis city council. Police departments have been disbanded before, and there have been many advocates of doing so in particular cases today as falling short of outright abolition.


Doesn't it reek of collective responsibility? If some policemen (especially black ones) had nothing to do with the crime and moreover condemned it why should they be fired? And can they sue the city and be reinstalled in their jobs?



I wish you had read a little about the debates in this country over the past month-and-a-half, since if you had you would have more perspective on both the extant problems and the possible solutions. They're far from parochial debates, and can give insight to civil-police relations and strategies anywhere, so you won't be bored.


I can respond with your lines:


It's America-centrism and a lack of global awareness, which you can and should criticize.


I have my own joys and sorrows to pay events in the USA more than a cursory attention. As probably you do about events in Ukraine or anywhere else outside the US.

And another sidenote:
if you pick up a week old debate don't expect me to react to 29 (!!!) comments of yours.

[Idaho]

..both against denying racist implications and against seeing them in every single case...
In the case of systemic racism throughout the criminal justice system, the evidence is stark and clear.

You and Montmorency need to learn brevity. Both your last posts are tldr. Honestly - get an editor, learn some pith.

[Gilrandir]

You and Montmorency need to learn brevity. Both your last posts are tldr. Honestly - get an editor

Will you be one?

[Montmorency]

In the case of systemic racism throughout the criminal justice system, the evidence is stark and clear.

You and Montmorency need to learn brevity. Both your last posts are tldr. Honestly - get an editor, learn some pith.

But in brevity much of the substance I intend to relay may be lost, and then what's the point? For example, what's the TLDR of the article I reposted? That there are a lotta white power troglodytes in the deep places of the country. That's pithy, but does it even bear saying? Meanwhile all the little details and points that give texture (at least) languish in the lacuna.



Aren't you tired of this Bandera squabble?

He was no angel, you are right. BUT: he spent most of his life before WWII in the Polish prison ans during WWII in the concentration camp. Mass killer from prison?

Then, to call someone a war criminal you should have a court's decision. The trial that could have done it was the Nuremberg trial. Neither UPA nor Bandera were found guilty of war crimes there.

Besides this dramatically thinning the ranks of history's war criminals - almost none have ever been tried and convicted - I again notice you are more charitable to Bandera, who apparently never had the disgrace to be associated with alleged intent to defraud with counterfeit currency. Why are you so comparatively charitable here?


Evaluation is always subjective. For some people Putin is a god, for others a devil.

So? Is he more or less of a god or a devil than you, and if there is no answer to the question then what is there ever to discuss?


People of other races than white in the USSR could be counted on the fingers of a hand. How can you find racist practices in a country with virtually monorace? It is like to try to calculate the number of car accidents in a village where there are no car owners.

Leaving aside the ethnic hierarchies of "white" that put Russians above all the rest and counting Jews as white (which Russians, Ukrainians, and the like certainly did not), you conspicuously erase all the Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Koreans, Siberian tribes, etc.

Like, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia are famously ethnically-diverse - do you think we're that ignorant here as to take your assertion for granted?

But even if every single Soviet citizen had been a ethnic Russian with alabaster skin, and the Soviet government had no intermediaries to the outside world other than other white Europeans, that would not preclude Soviet people from holding racist attitudes that could manifest into practice if given the opportunity.


The latter needs a proof. But even if he did I don't see how it bears on racism. Xenophobia - perhaps, but racism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

What is the distinction you're making between racism and xenophobia here, which are generally seen to overlap almost completely? It's especially strange in light of the fact that these genocidal actions were taken against internal populations subject to the state. Stalin could not be said to be more "xenophobic" toward Kalmyks than Hitler was toward German Jews or Euro-Americans were toward African-Americans.


I offered a possible usage of Africa, you gave your take on the issue. I don't see why yours is better than mine. Even if we accept your view that Chukovsky was painting Africa as a dangerous place, why is it racist? Is saying that Queens/Harlem a dangerous place racist? I am more inclined to think that calling Africa a dangerous place is more like "everywhere outside our Soviet Motherland is dangerous".

Your take was incoherent.

Because they're the same exact ideas that had currency throughout Europe at the time, and these ideas dehumanized Africans as animalistic, childlike, unintelligent, etc.


I repeat: as long as can remember myself a Soviet kid teachers and TV were talking my ears off with stories of poor Africans who were oppressed by capitalists from Europe and poor black Americans who were tortured by KKK. And the mission of Soviet country and all its citizens is to help them in all possible ways. So talking of racism in the USSR as a part of ideology is ridiculous.

I never referred to Marxist-Leninist dogma on paper, which as you said proclaimed the equality of people, but to culture and government in practice. Emphasizing the helplessness and subordinacy of a people and your role as their savior is not the pinnacle of anti-racism by the way.



As long as crimes and brutality are concerned it shouldn't. A murderer should always be a murderer. If you implicate race OJ Simpson isn't found to be one.

So what would you have done about the unfair and oppressive treatment of black people at all points in the justice and carceral systems, as well as the systemic practices and conditions that leave them more liable to be preyed upon by the former? If it satisfies you to see millions of black men tormented because one celebrity was not convicted, that is a wholly disproportionate set of priorities and one I suspect you would not apply to white people.


I can use "black lives matter" only if after this sentence comes a continuation like "as well as other lives do".

That's the whole point. If it helps, modify to slogan to read "Black Lives Matter Too."


Can I apply this conclusion and advice to yourself?

Only if you believe everyone is right and no one is wrong.


I support it when a black deserves it. Not just because he is black. Otherwise it is like on March 8 people of the USSR congratulated women on being women.

The point being that the racist host conflated kneeling in solidarity and in protest of injustice with kneeling as an expression of fealty toward black supremacy, or of celebration of a particular person. For such people there can only be one hierarchy or another.

Men are congratulated for being men every day. Didn't they teach you about the whole premise of bringing attention to women for even a day? Not surprising you would be dismissive toward both non-whites and women, as these issues tend to be correlated.


Doesn't it reek of collective responsibility? If some policemen (especially black ones) had nothing to do with the crime and moreover condemned it why should they be fired? And can they sue the city and be reinstalled in their jobs?

Collective responsibility? As a government institution of course there is collective responsibility, and this type of excuse was laughed out of the room in Nuremberg I might add.

In a very concrete sense too there is collective responsibility, as corrupt or violent police cannot persist in their positions without the active encouragement, training, and support of other police and their leadership: the sergeants, the detectives, the captains, the chiefs, the commissioners, the arbitrators, the prosecutors, the police unions, even the city governments. Bad cops are not bad apples, they are the natural product of a whole rotten orchard.

The police who have nothing to do with police crimes and moreover condemn them tend to be forced out of their jobs as police. It's a kind of selection effect, and it's the meaning behind the Thin Blue Line.

Here's a recent article on the Minneapolis police reform process (Samurai, you might be interested in this one.).
https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2020/07/what-we-know-and-dont-know-so-far-about-the-effort-to-dismantle-the-minneapolis-police-department/
I am not sure what kind of valid legal complaint they could have, as their agencies would only be terminated following modification of the city charter by popular referendum. The city charter currently mandates the establishment of a police force.


I have my own joys and sorrows to pay events in the USA more than a cursory attention. As probably you do about events in Ukraine or anywhere else outside the US.

That's fine, but I don't make a point of offering awfully tone-deaf and ignorant comments about ongoing social conflicts in Ukraine.


if you pick up a week old debate don't expect me to react to 29 (!!!) comments of yours

??

[Gilrandir]

Besides this dramatically thinning the ranks of history's war criminals - almost none have ever been tried and convicted - I again notice you are more charitable to Bandera, who apparently never had the disgrace to be associated with alleged intent to defraud with counterfeit currency. Why are you so comparatively charitable here?


It has nothing to do with charity. I pay attnetion to the facts that are overlooked by the lopsided presentation. If only the good is stressed I remind of the bad and vice versa as I did with the national hero of Ukraine Bohdan Khmelnytsky. I could say a few unpleasnat words about Volodymyr the Great and Yaroslav the Wise whose portraits are on Ukrainian money, btw.



So? Is he more or less of a god or a devil than you, and if there is no answer to the question then what is there ever to discuss?


Attitudes. You may have failed to notice but this forum (as probably all social media) is about expressing attitudes.



Leaving aside the ethnic hierarchies of "white" that put Russians above all the rest and counting Jews as white (which Russians, Ukrainians, and the like certainly did not), you conspicuously erase all the Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Koreans, Siberian tribes, etc.

Like, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia are famously ethnically-diverse - do you think we're that ignorant here as to take your assertion for granted?

But even if every single Soviet citizen had been a ethnic Russian with alabaster skin, and the Soviet government had no intermediaries to the outside world other than other white Europeans, that would not preclude Soviet people from holding racist attitudes that could manifest into practice if given the opportunity.


Since officially all Soviet people were brethern supposed to converge into a pan-ethnic entity one of these days racist attitudes were never shaped into "Kazakhs shouldn't be accepted to Universities" or "Let's not hire him because he is an Uzbek". Moreover, in national republics it could be vice versa with stressing prevalence of local nations over Russians.




What is the distinction you're making between racism and xenophobia here, which are generally seen to overlap almost completely? It's especially strange in light of the fact that these genocidal actions were taken against internal populations subject to the state. Stalin could not be said to be more "xenophobic" toward Kalmyks than Hitler was toward German Jews or Euro-Americans were toward African-Americans.


Classically, xenophobia is the fear or hatred of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Not necesserily of other race. And for the Soviet people all foreigners were supposed to be capitalists' agents dreaming of destroying the most beautiful country in the world. And internal populations were "our home traitors or foreing spies" that have to be dealt with.




Because they're the same exact ideas that had currency throughout Europe at the time, and these ideas dehumanized Africans as animalistic, childlike, unintelligent, etc.


With no interent in eveidence, Soviet people who were separated from Europe and the rest of the world by the iron curtain were unaware of current ideological trends elsewhere. Even if it was otherwise with Chukovsky the ideological pressure of the Party and severe censorship wouldn't permit him to publish anything that was at odds with the official policy of the Party especially propagating racism in children's verses.

By the way, I watched Trip to America again the other day and noticed some characters giving derogatory remarks about Africa. Was it racism? Or if they were blacks it wasn't? Just arrogance of Americans as to the poor uncultured areas? The same could be said of Chukovsky's verses, in my view.


So what would you have done about the unfair and oppressive treatment of black people at all points in the justice and carceral systems, as well as the systemic practices and conditions that leave them more liable to be preyed upon by the former? If it satisfies you to see millions of black men tormented because one celebrity was not convicted, that is a wholly disproportionate set of priorities and one I suspect you would not apply to white people.


No torments satisfy me. But I again pay attention to the facts which differ from the general tendency.



That's the whole point. If it helps, modify to slogan to read "Black Lives Matter Too."


That's a perfect idea. But I can't modify slogans of a political movement. If BLM supporters do it I would welcome the change. But would they? I doubt.



The police who have nothing to do with police crimes and moreover condemn them tend to be forced out of their jobs as police.


So can we surmise that 12%+ of cops who are black and aren't forced of their jobs nationwide are in agreement with racist practices exercised by their PDs?



That's fine, but I don't make a point of offering awfully tone-deaf and ignorant comments about ongoing social conflicts in Ukraine.



I express my take on the issue. You may qualify it as you like. Being emotionally invested impacts your objectivity (if it is attainable in such issues). Like when I criticized Trump my comments didn't seem to you tone-deaf and ignorant. How come? Not because they chime with your attitude?

[ReluctantSamurai]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/us/minneapolis-police-abolish.html


Protesters’ cries to defund or abolish the police are often not meant literally. Rather, they are demands to rethink a law enforcement system from the ground up and to grapple with deeply ingrained issues, including employing officers who do not live in the city they police — as is done in Minneapolis — and sending armed officers to respond to situations that turn out not to be crimes, as when a mentally ill person is in distress.

If you have never experienced what is is like to actually know the officers who are policing you, and have them as neighbors, my experience with a pilot project on the east side of Detroit shows that in-city or in-neighborhood officers is extremely important.

As part of a larger project to overhaul the DPD in 2013, the East English Village section of Detroit began deploying NPO's (Neighborhood Police Officers) to patrol the nearly 2100 homes in the district. These were part of the DPD, and were trained at the Detroit Police Training Academy. It was required that they live in the district, and they were allowed to purchase homes foreclosed by the city at a reduced price, if they so desired.

EEV held regular monthly meetings to discuss Village events and as a way to get to know other residents of the community. The NPO's (there were 3) were always present at the meetings, and people could discuss local problems with them and arrive at solutions. It wasn't long before you knew them by name, and they knew yours. Folks almost always brought baked goods or other food items for the NPO's, even though the Village provided food for the meeting. The first time I saw this I thought, who does that? The captain from the 5th Precinct attended quarterly with reports on crime rates, types of crimes, etc. I lived in EEV for 6 years, and every year drug related crimes, as well as violent crimes decreased y-o-y. This is not to say everything in Detroit is smelling like roses, because there are still large swaths of the city that could be used as a set for filming an episode of The Walking Dead. But it's a start, and other areas of the city are now trying out the same approach.

An anecdotal story as to how integrated the NPO's became: EEV sponsors various friendly competitions amongst homeowners, and one of them is a landscaping contest. The only award is street bragging rights, and a plaque awarding 1st, 2d, or 3d in the competition. Several blocks down my street lived an elderly woman with the proverbial 'green thumb'. Impeccable yard full of colorful flowers, shrubs and trees. Of course she always took 1st, but nobody grumbled...the place was a beautiful reflection of the community.

Unfortunately, it's a big city, and bad big-city things happen. Some kids decided to have a little "fun" at her expense, and tore up the yard one evening, ripping out a lot of shrubbery and destroyed her flower beds. In response, EEV folks got together on a weekend, and repaired/replanted her entire yard with the Village footing the bill for the new plants and shrubs. Every one of those NPO's showed up at one time or another over the weekend to put in some work. Again, who does that?

Anyway, Idaho will probably be bitching this is tl:dr, so enough~;) BTW, all the NPO's are black, and so is the district captain.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A follow-up on the "Ken & Karen" story from St. Louis:

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html

:crazy:

[Montmorency]

Of interest:
https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.7/public-health-theres-already-an-alternative-to-calling-the-police


Mobile, community-based crisis programs employ first responders that are not police to address disturbances where crimes are not being committed. One of the nation’s longest-running examples is CAHOOTS — Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets — in Eugene, Oregon. CAHOOTS has inspired similar programs in other cities in the region, including the Denver Alliance for Street Health Response, Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland and Portland Street Response in Oregon.

Such programs take police out of the equation when someone is going through a mental health crisis, struggling with substance abuse, or experiencing homelessness. When police show up, situations can escalate, and the use of force can be disproportionate, especially towards Black people; a 2016 study estimated that 20% to 50% of fatal encounters with law enforcement involved someone with a mental illness. Advocates say the CAHOOTS model shows those encounters aren’t inevitable: Less than 1% of the calls that CAHOOTS responds to need police assistance. The CAHOOTS system relies on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction, which reduces calls to police, averts harmful arrest-release-repeat cycles, and prevents violent police encounters.

THE WHITE BIRD CLINIC in Eugene started CAHOOTS 31 years ago as an alternative for people who felt alienated or disenfranchised from systems that had failed them, CAHOOTS Operations Coordinator Tim Black said in an interview. “We’re there to listen, we’re there to empathize, and we’re there to really reflect on what they’re going through,” and to discuss ways to access resources to help them. CAHOOTS — a free, 24/7 community service — is funded by Eugene and neighboring Springfield at a cost of around $2 million, equal to just over 2% of their police departments’ annual budgets. The program is currently fundraising to expand and make up for COVID-19-related budget cuts.

Under the model, instead of police, a medic and a mental health worker are dispatched for calls such as welfare checks or potential overdoses. In 2017, such teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. This has saved the city, on average, $8.5 million each year from 2014-2017, according to the White Bird Clinic.

hough CAHOOTS uses the police department’s central dispatch, it is distinct from the department. Employees do not carry guns or wear uniforms; instead, they wear casual hoodies and drive vans with a dove painted on the side. CAHOOTS’ methods are designed to prevent escalation, Black said. “If an officer enters that situation with power, with authority, with that uniform and a command presence, that situation is really likely to escalate.”

It’s a false assumption that people experiencing a mental health crisis will respond violently, Black said, and a police response is often unnecessary. CAHOOTS fielded over 24,000 calls last year; less than 1% of them needed assistance from police, and no one has ever been seriously injured.

CAHOOTS differs from other mental health partnerships with the police in important ways: Staff employ “unconditional positive regard,” a phrase from psychology that means complete support and acceptance for the people they encounter, and the organization is run as a “consensus collective,” rather than a hierarchy. Every employee’s voice carries equal weight.

Each crisis worker completes 500 hours of training in areas including medical care, conflict resolution and crisis counseling. Around 60% of CAHOOTS’ patients are homeless, and about 30% have severe or persistent mental illness. “The patient that we’re serving is the expert in their situation,” Black said. “They know that we’re a voluntary resource and that we’re not going to take their rights away just because we’ve shown up on scene.”




It has nothing to do with charity. I pay attnetion to the facts that are overlooked by the lopsided presentation.

That's not how you're presenting. You interposed yourself to redirect attention from malgovernance and racial repression to the mixed record of a murdered man. To do this implies that you believe the latter should be emphasized in place of the former.


Attitudes. You may have failed to notice but this forum (as probably all social media) is about expressing attitudes.

OK, but why and whence? Are we here reproducing irritable gestures lacking mental ingredients? It's impossible to say, but I like to assume that if I believed 'Trump is awful in every way but ultimately there is no philosophical justification for that belief' I wouldn't bother to post about it.


Since officially all Soviet people were brethern supposed to converge into a pan-ethnic entity one of these days racist attitudes were never shaped into "Kazakhs shouldn't be accepted to Universities" or "Let's not hire him because he is an Uzbek". Moreover, in national republics it could be vice versa with stressing prevalence of local nations over Russians.

:wacky: :laugh4:


Classically, xenophobia is the fear or hatred of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Not necesserily of other race. And for the Soviet people all foreigners were supposed to be capitalists' agents dreaming of destroying the most beautiful country in the world. And internal populations were "our home traitors or foreing spies" that have to be dealt with.

They could be deviationists, spies, saboteurs, (((rootless cosmopolitans)))...

These labels and the force behind them were applied in an ethnically-discriminatory way as a general practice, but time and again it was constructed as an essentially ethnic disturbance against the state. Perpetually with non-Russians or Turkic peoples, but of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhdanov_Doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Anti-Fascist_Committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot


With no interent in eveidence, Soviet people who were separated from Europe and the rest of the world by the iron curtain were unaware of current ideological trends elsewhere.

The Soviet people were not so shut off from Europe that they abraded away the entire cultural and intellectual influence of the 19th century - indeed, the opposite was the case. The Soviet government was intensely interested in promulgating cultural products of Europe in the domains of art, architecture, literature, language, music, etc. In any case we are speaking of widespread ideas so common and basic that they were not much questioned, like the concept of marriage.


Even if it was otherwise with Chukovsky the ideological pressure of the Party and severe censorship wouldn't permit him to publish anything that was at odds with the official policy of the Party especially propagating racism in children's verses.

You beg the question in assuming party functionaries would be non-racist in identifying racism.

So far, you've been leaning on the excuses that the author had no choice but to wax poetic about the savagery of Africa (and that this would be non-racist in any case), that Russians were too isolated to have a concept of anti-African racism, or that the writings could not by any Scottish definition be racist if the Soviet government permitted their publication. Do you really not see the problem here?


By the way, I watched Trip to America again the other day and noticed some characters giving derogatory remarks about Africa. Was it racism? Or if they were blacks it wasn't? Just arrogance of Americans as to the poor uncultured areas? The same could be said of Chukovsky's verses, in my view.

If you mean Eddie Murphy's Coming to America, I haven't seen it since I was a small child so I can't comment on what you heard. But, where would black Americans get racist ideas about Africa (or themselves) from? From white Americans.


No torments satisfy me. But I again pay attention to the facts which differ from the general tendency.

It's tempting to rephrase that as, 'prefer alternative facts that dispense the need to grapple with racial conflict.' You've taken the time to emphasize an individual victim's crimes, challenge the idea of the presence of racism in policing, defend police outside the set of those in the act of committing egregious crimes, deprioritize black lives in the context of those lives being at issue, and... plus some of the most far-fetched Soviet revisionism I've ever encountered.

But you're recalcitrant toward the question of advancing racial equality in the US or elsewhere.

What does it all amount to?


That's a perfect idea. But I can't modify slogans of a political movement. If BLM supporters do it I would welcome the change. But would they? I doubt.

If only they had formed a collective council to issue dogma proclaiming the most promising strategy to orient the movement around satisfying the intuitions of the, uhhhh, racially-skeptical. Maybe they assumed people of good will could work it out independently.

There are so many easily-digestible images, skits, videos breaking the Lives issue down, but here's this one.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1278796654443888641


So can we surmise that 12%+ of cops who are black and aren't forced of their jobs nationwide are in agreement with racist practices exercised by their PDs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omert%C3%A0


I express my take on the issue. You may qualify it as you like. Being emotionally invested impacts your objectivity (if it is attainable in such issues). Like when I criticized Trump my comments didn't seem to you tone-deaf and ignorant. How come? Not because they chime with your attitude?

I don't recall you criticizing Trump, but it is possible that I take issue with meritless, incorrect, or otherwise objectionable comments and don't take issue with comments that are not such.

If I told you that Ukraine is a country that exists, what complaint would you raise? None, and moreover it would be beneath your notice for response. In telling you though that Ukraine is the manor of a Martian grandee populated by cow-human hybrids, I would be offending any number of perspectives at a staggering level.

TLDR: Wrong is not due any tribute paid to right.

[Gilrandir]

That's not how you're presenting. You interposed yourself to redirect attention from malgovernance and racial repression to the mixed record of a murdered man. To do this implies that you believe the latter should be emphasized in place of the former.


That's your impression. I speak of no emphasis but of awareness of negative sides which being emotionally invested many Americans tend to overlook or intentionally downplay.



OK, but why and whence? Are we here reproducing irritable gestures lacking mental ingredients?


Even if mental ingredients are aplenty still communicating in the social media is about exchanging personal attitudes mostly.



These labels and the force behind them were applied in an ethnically-discriminatory way as a general practice, but time and again it was constructed as an essentially ethnic disturbance against the state.


Ethnic! Not racial. Ethnic-focused purges were often aimed at white people who were deemed to differ politically (like the Baltic peoples and Ukrainians deported to Syberia).



The Soviet people were not so shut off from Europe that they abraded away the entire cultural and intellectual influence of the 19th century - indeed, the opposite was the case. The Soviet government was intensely interested in promulgating cultural products of Europe in the domains of art, architecture, literature, language, music, etc. In any case we are speaking of widespread ideas so common and basic that they were not much questioned, like the concept of marriage.


This is totally wrong. Soviet authotities were interested in separating the USSR from the rest of the world and creating an entirely new society with entirely new ideology, art, literature, science and even language (see Newspeak) that had nothing to do whatsoever with the practices of rotten capitalism. And if any person working in these spheres was spotted bringing in чуждые веяния and преклонения перед Западом he was at best censured and at worst incarcerated or shot.



You beg the question in assuming party functionaries would be non-racist in identifying racism.


Since anti-racism was a part of official ideology and party functionaries were acutely alert to any (even imaginary) deviations from it I believe my statement holds.



So far, you've been leaning on the excuses that the author had no choice but to wax poetic about the savagery of Africa (and that this would be non-racist in any case), that Russians were too isolated to have a concept of anti-African racism, or that the writings could not by any Scottish definition be racist if the Soviet government permitted their publication. Do you really not see the problem here?


I don't. I wasn't leaning on excuses. I offered plenty of assumptions why Africa was used in the verse and some of them (or all of them taken together) might have served as a plausible explanation. For you, it is easier to explain it by racism (insulting the Scottish along the way), and get done with it. Yet neither you nor me will get down to the core since it is only Chukovsky himself or the people who were deep in his counsels may offer the answer.



If you mean Eddie Murphy's Coming to America, I haven't seen it since I was a small child so I can't comment on what you heard. But, where would black Americans get racist ideas about Africa (or themselves) from? From white Americans.


So American blacks humiliating African blacks is racism? Wouldn't xenophobia be a better fit?

And speaking of racism in movies. I can name plenty of films where the main/super hero is white, as well as many movies (often the same) where the archvillain is white. I also can recall a fair number of movies where the good guy is black (Equalizer, Blade, Book of Eli, all of Dwayne Johnson movies - even the black Hercules seemed appropriate to the director), but somehow the archvillain can never be black (the only exception I can think of is Demolition Man). Isn't that racist?



You've taken the time to emphasize an individual victim's crimes, challenge the idea of the presence of racism in policing,


I never said it was absent, I was surprised at how the black cops can participate in it.



defend police outside the set of those in the act of committing egregious crimes,


Why should good policemen be punihsed if they didn't do anything worth condemnation?



deprioritize black lives in the context of those lives being at issue,


You have suggested Black Lives Matter Too so you depriotized black lives yourself putting them on par with other lives. Which I totally agree with.



and... plus some of the most far-fetched Soviet revisionism I've ever encountered.


You consider explaining official Soviet ideology revisionism? Way to go.



But you're recalcitrant toward the question of advancing racial equality in the US or elsewhere.


If you read my posts again you would definitely see my basic tenet: all people should get equal treatment and be equally punished for whatever crime they committed. If you call this recalcitrance... Carry on!



What does it all amount to?


Arbitrary assumptions, based on misinterpretations and subsequent witchhunt.



If only they had formed a collective council to issue dogma proclaiming the most promising strategy to orient the movement around satisfying the intuitions of the, uhhhh, racially-skeptical. Maybe they assumed people of good will could work it out independently.


To be branded racist as that NBA announcer and get ostracized?



I don't recall you criticizing Trump, but it is possible that I take issue with meritless, incorrect, or otherwise objectionable comments and don't take issue with comments that are not such.


You are right. I didn't criticize him. I mocked him. But since this seems to be the attitude of ALL the people on these boards no one batted an eyelid. That's how attitudes in social media work.


In telling you though that Ukraine is the manor of a Martian grandee populated by cow-human hybrids, I would be offending any number of perspectives at a staggering level.


Judging from the percentage of Zelensky's supporters I would have to agree to this. Ruefully.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The broken link on the above "Ken & Karen" story has been fixed.:yes:

[Montmorency]

More evidence that the 2020 BLM protest wave is the biggest in American history. If the Women's March of 2017 had been the distinction-holder with at least 1% of the population participating, the BLM protests may have involved well over 5% of the population. That could be literally unprecedented in American history.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html


The protests may also be benefitting from a country that is more conditioned to protesting. The adversarial stance that the Trump administration has taken on issues like guns, climate change and immigration has led to more protests than under any other presidency since the Cold War.

More than 40 percent of counties in the United States — at least 1,360 — have had a protest. Unlike with past Black Lives Matter protests, nearly 95 percent of counties that had a protest recently are majority white, and nearly three-quarters of the counties are more than 75 percent white.

So this is what now, the top 5 protest movements in American history all under Trump?

https://i.imgur.com/9opiHUX.png

Vstavaj strana ogromnaja




This is totally wrong. Soviet authotities were interested in separating the USSR from the rest of the world and creating an entirely new society with entirely new ideology, art, literature, science and even language (see Newspeak) that had nothing to do whatsoever with the practices of rotten capitalism. And if any person working in these spheres was spotted bringing in чуждые веяния and преклонения перед Западом he was at best censured and at worst incarcerated or shot.

I'm not even going to pursue whatever equivocation you're engaging in, but the Soviet Union was very much a place where classical history, Italian opera, and Shakespeare were elevated. Aside from their own colonial engagements in the East, everything Russians knew of indigenous peoples of the wider world was filtered through the writings of racist Europeans. The assumptions popularly disseminated a hundred years ago haven't changed that much.

Another example of Western influence:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9O80pSI3t8


Since anti-racism was a part of official ideology and party functionaries were acutely alert to any (even imaginary) deviations from it I believe my statement holds.

There is no reason to believe they were acutely alert to deviations from anti-racism even as you would define it (which does not hew to the typical usage).


I don't. I wasn't leaning on excuses. I offered plenty of assumptions why Africa was used in the verse and some of them (or all of them taken together) might have served as a plausible explanation. For you, it is easier to explain it by racism (insulting the Scottish along the way), and get done with it. Yet neither you nor me will get down to the core since it is only Chukovsky himself or the people who were deep in his counsels may offer the answer.

If oral expressions of intent were the only form of communication or learning then we wouldn't have a civilization. Hard to believe a student of literary analysis could say something like that. We can read the words he author wrote and take their meaning both literally and in historical and cultural context.


So American blacks humiliating African blacks is racism? Wouldn't xenophobia be a better fit?

An African American personally bullying a black African as such could be xenophobic, but the derogatory discourse itself around Africa is not something African Americans invented.


And speaking of racism in movies. I can name plenty of films where the main/super hero is white, as well as many movies (often the same) where the archvillain is white. I also can recall a fair number of movies where the good guy is black (Equalizer, Blade, Book of Eli, all of Dwayne Johnson movies - even the black Hercules seemed appropriate to the director), but somehow the archvillain can never be black (the only exception I can think of is Demolition Man). Isn't that racist?

You don't know much about American cinema if you think black villains are uncommon. Even worse if you think there ought to be a racial 'balance' in villains, or that this would preclude or remedy racism. Next tell me what you think of the ways characters are framed.


Why should good policemen be punihsed if they didn't do anything worth condemnation?

Why should good Communists be punished by Ukraine breaking away from USSR if they didn't do anything worth condemnation? Red herring.

If an institution is defective then it will, as I belabor, concertively corrupt someone who was "good" coming in because the actors all work toward the same goals and norms. If these are self-serving and harmful to the general public, then it is impossible to persist within the institution without acceding to and becoming implicated in these practices. Good cops would have intervened against their colleague Chauvin and confidently brought him up for misconduct, rather than acting the cheerful accomplice.

But there is a common track for identifying those who can be reabsorbed or rehabilitated into reconstructed institutions. With police for example, one method that has been used in various times and places is to allow them to reapply for work in the new agencies, submitting to thorough review of their records and heightened recruitment standards. If they don't make the cut, they can't say they weren't given a chance.


You have suggested Black Lives Matter Too so you depriotized black lives yourself putting them on par with other lives. Which I totally agree with.

Your problem is that you defensively interpret "Black Lives Matter" as 'putting blacks above me', but the meaning is quite plain in that 'you are not above blacks'. It's an invitation (especially to complacent whites) to give some attention to the onerous burdens placed on them by a stubbornly-supremacist society. It's really simple.


You consider explaining official Soviet ideology revisionism? Way to go.

Не говори ерунды.


To be branded racist as that NBA announcer and get ostracized?

All Lives Matter is a racist slogan whose universal usage is to disingenuously belittle non-whites. Everyone already agrees that "All Lives Matter." Not everyone agrees that black lives matter as well. This inconsistency is at the heart of racism.

[Papewaio]

The wonder isn't that BLM is protesting and trying to turn society on its ear -- it is their patience for mostly doing so in non-violent manner and with as much respect for the law as they are displaying.

Heard Limbaugh bloviating that BLM was "not about civil rights" but was about marxist "socialism."

I found myself wondering why he thought the latter obviated the former, and thinking to myself "OF COURSE they would turn towards Marxism, it is not as though the current system and the current two parties have done them much of a favor after all."

Was it marxist socialism or cultural socialism that he referred to?

[Gilrandir]

I'm not even going to pursue whatever equivocation you're engaging in, but the Soviet Union was very much a place where classical history, Italian opera, and Shakespeare were elevated.


To be elevated doesn't mean that the same practices were encouraged if Soviet writers or artists were engaged in them. And, among foreign writers and artists only those were elevated who were against bourgeois society and rotten capitalism.



Aside from their own colonial engagements in the East, everything Russians knew of indigenous peoples of the wider world was filtered through the writings of racist Europeans.


As I have said, the Soviet people were supposed to spurn racist ideology of the capitalist world.



Another example of Western influence:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9O80pSI3t8


I don't know why you think it is an influence of Western racists, but Cook being murdered by the local tribes of a Pacific island is a historic fact. Why is it racist? It seems to me you see racism where there is none. According to your view, any mentioning of a crime conducted by non-whites is racist. "Harlem is a dangerous place to visit" is also a racist statement?



There is no reason to believe they were acutely alert to deviations from anti-racism even as you would define it (which does not hew to the typical usage).

If you say there isn't, it is your opinion. If I say there is it is my opinion. I don't see why your suppositions are better than mine.



If oral expressions of intent were the only form of communication or learning then we wouldn't have a civilization. Hard to believe a student of literary analysis could say something like that. We can read the words he author wrote and take their meaning both literally and in historical and cultural context.


Interpretations are always arbitrary, as the Shelob tunnel feminist reading shows.



You don't know much about American cinema if you think black villains are uncommon.


And yet you don't exemplify.



Even worse if you think there ought to be a racial 'balance' in villains, or that this would preclude or remedy racism.


Judging from my observations, movie makers seem to hold this point of view. Or they are afraid to be stigmatized as racists.



Why should good Communists be punished by Ukraine breaking away from USSR if they didn't do anything worth condemnation? Red herring.


They were not punished. They stopped being party members since the Communist party was proclaimed illegal.

Policemen being fired is different from being not a party member any more.



Не говори ерунды.


This is an unbeatable argument. And besides, I don't believe intimacy between us has reached the stage when we can say ты to each other.



All Lives Matter is a racist slogan whose universal usage is to disingenuously belittle non-whites. Everyone already agrees that "All Lives Matter." Not everyone agrees that black lives matter as well. This inconsistency is at the heart of racism.

So "all people are equal" is also a xenophobic/racist/poor-discriminating slogan?

If cops are largely racists then their brutality ought to be directed towards other non-white communities. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" singles out one of them disregading Hispanic or Asians. From this perspective the slogan can be considered racist.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Sturmabteilung making a comeback?

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/


Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.


Officers from the U.S. Marshals Special Operations Group and Customs and Border Protection’s BORTAC, have been sent to Portland to protect federal property during the recent protests against racism and police brutality. But interviews conducted by OPB show officers are also detaining people on Portland streets who aren’t near federal property, nor is it clear that all of the people being arrested have engaged in criminal activity.


This week, Trump has repeatedly spoken out about what he calls lawlessness in the city. He praised the role of federal law enforcement officers in Portland and alluded to increasing their presence in cities nationwide. Speaking to Fox News on Thursday, Acting U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan called the protesters criminals. “I don’t want to get ahead of the president and his announcement,” Morgan said, “but the Department of Justice is going to be involved in this, DHS is going to be involved in this; and we’re really going to take a stand across the board. And we’re going to do what needs to be done to protect the men and women of this country.”

So....Chad Wolf as the new Ernst Röhm ?

[Strike For The South]

What is going on in Portland is insane. The word fascism has been overwrought in our current age, but this is a textbook case of what it looks like. No badges, no uniforms, no words. The men come in and take you. If this was a scene in Hong Kong the usual suspects would be bloviating about tyranny(which this is).

I am also concerned with the local response. The Portland mayor emphatically stated he didn't want them there and wouldn't take a meeting with them, whoever "they" are. So I guess these LEOs will simply operate with impunity, while the mayor tut-tuts them on twitter? Is this leadership? Do nothing works great when you're Joe Biden and cruising to an easy win. It works less great when you are a mayor.

On my worst days, it looks like Hawley 2024 and our very own Pacto del olvido. I hate it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was it marxist socialism or cultural socialism that he referred to?

Limbaugh conflates the two, almost with abandon. Marxism and Communism are defined by the CCCP and the PRC. He sees socialism as a slightly watered down version of this that will seek to recreate the same systems he grew up loathing in the 60's and 70's.

[Montmorency]

Strike, what do you think of this: Asheville, North Carolina (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/us/reparations-asheville-nc.html) (Blue Ridge Mountains!), has committed through a unanimous city council vote to pursuing a program of reparations for Black Americans. The first of its kind?



The measure was unanimously approved by the Asheville City Council on Tuesday night, but it stopped short of stipulating direct payments, which are usually associated with reparations. City leaders said their goal was to help create generational wealth for Black people, who have been hurt by income, educational and health care disparities. Councilman Keith Young, who is one of two Black members on the Council, was one of the measure’s chief proponents. He said during the group’s meeting that systemic change was long overdue.

“Hundreds of years of Black blood spilled that basically fills the cup that we drink from today,” Mr. Young said.

William A. Darity Jr., a professor of public policy at Duke University in Durham, N.C., wrote in an email on Wednesday night that he was “deeply skeptical about local or piecemeal actions to address various forms of racial inequality being labeled ‘reparations.’”

For reparations to be effective, he wrote, they would have to close the pretax racial wealth disparity in the United States, which would cost about $10 to $12 trillion — three to four times more than total state and municipal spending.

Darity may be correct, but small-scale proof of concept can only help the cause of national reparations. The trial policy argument was a common one for implementing Medicare for All on a state level, but where the latter have all been abandoned, it should be much easier to implement watered-down reparations by locality than universal health coverage by locality.

The text (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKialVISWzu72mhasyy9SslDbVGMSj5U/view) of the city council resolution:


RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMMUNITY REPARATIONS FOR BLACK ASHEVILLE
WHEREAS, Black People have been unjustly Enslaved; and
WHEREAS, Black People have been unjustly Segregated; and
WHEREAS, Black people have been unjustly Incarcerated; and
WHEREAS, Black People have been denied housing through racist practices in the
private realty market, including redlining, steering, blockbusting, denial of mortgages, and
gentrification; and
WHEREAS, Black People have been denied housing, displaced and inadequately
housed by government housing policies that include discriminatory VA/FHA practices, Urban
Renewal, and a variety of local and federal “affordable” housing programs; and
WHEREAS, Black People have been consistently and widely impoverished by
discriminatory wages paid in every sector of the local economy regardless of credentials and
experience; and
WHEREAS, Black People have experienced disproportionate unemployment rates and
reduced opportunities to fully participate in the local job market; and
WHEREAS, Black People have been systematically excluded from historic and present
private economic development and community investments and, therefore, black-owned
businesses have not received the benefits of these investments; and
WHEREAS, Black people have been segregated from mainstream education and within
present day school programs that include AG, AP, and Honors; and
WHEREAS, Black students have experienced the denial of education through
admission, retention and graduation rates of every level of education in WNC and through
discriminatory disciplinary practices; and
WHEREAS, Black People historically and presently receive inadequate, if not
detrimental, health care as exemplified by disproportionate morbidities and mortality rates that
result from the generational trauma of systemic racism, discriminatory treatment by medical
professionals, and discriminatory medical practices such as involuntary sterilizations, denial of
adequate testing, denial of preventative and curative procedures; and
WHEREAS, Black People have been unjustly targeted by law enforcement and criminal
justice procedures, incarcerated at disproportionate rates and subsequently excluded from full
participation in the benefits of citizenship that include voting, employment, housing and health
care; and

WHEREAS, Black People have disproportionately been forced to reside in, adjacent to,
or near Brown Zones and other toxic sites that negatively impact their health and property; and
WHEREAS, Black People have disproportionately been limited to the confined routes of
travel provided by public transportation; and
WHEREAS, Black People have disproportionately suffered from the isolation of food
deserts and childcare deserts;
WHEREAS, systemic racism was created over centuries and will take time to dismantle;
WHEREAS, state and federal governments have a responsibility to adopt programs,
policies, and funding to address reparations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASHEVILLE THAT:
The City Council of the CIty of Asheville:
(1) apologizes and makes amends for its participation in and sanctioning of the
Enslavement of Black People;
(2) apologizes and makes amends for its enforcement of segregation and its
accompanying discriminatory practices;
(3) apologizes and makes amends for carrying out an urban renewal program that
destroyed multiple, successful black communities;
(4) calls on other organizations and institutions in Asheville that have advanced and
benefitted from racial inequity to join the city in its apologies and invites them to address racism
within their own structures and programs and to work with the city to more comprehensively
address systemic racism;
(5) calls on the State of North Carolina and the federal government to initiate
policymaking and provide funding for reparations at the state and national levels;
(6) directs the City Manager to establish a process within the next year to
develop short, medium and long term recommendations to specifically address the creation of
generational wealth and to boost economic mobility and opportunity in the black community;
(7) fully supports its equity department, staff and its work, and encourages the city
manager to utilize their talents when forming policy and programs that will establish the creation
of generational wealth and address reparations due in the black community as mentioned
above;
(8) seeks to establish within the next year, a new commission empowered to make short,
medium and long term recommendations that will make significant progress toward repairing
the damage caused by public and private systemic Racism. Other local government community

organizations may also be invited to have representation on the Commission.The task of the
Community Reparations Commission is to issue a report in a timely manner for consideration by
the City and other participating community groups for incorporation into their respective short
and long term priorities and plans. Accountability for achieving equity will be enforced in the
appropriate offices. The report and the resulting budgetary and programmatic priorities may
include but not be limited to increasing minority homeownership and access to other affordable
housing, increasing minority business ownership and career opportunities, strategies to grow
equity and generational wealth, closing the gaps in health care, education, employment and
pay, neighborhood safety and fairness within criminal justice;
(9) calls on the city manager to give, at minimum, a bi-annual update to the city council
on the progress of work performed pursuant to this resolution.




Limbaugh conflates the two, almost with abandon. Marxism and Communism are defined by the CCCP and the PRC. He sees socialism as a slightly watered down version of this that will seek to recreate the same systems he grew up loathing in the 60's and 70's.

The Trump-era fashion is that Democrat = KKK and liberal = socialist (the old standby) but socialist = fascist, therefore Democrats are KKK fascist commies (but the OG Confederate iteration of the KKK definitely weren't fascist). There is genuinely a fatal caliber of doublethink on the far right, which acts as a filter somewhat like the way Nigerian Prince scam emails do, but damn if it won't put us under (at least Nigerian Princes are just in it for personal enrichment).


As I have said, the Soviet people were supposed to spurn racist ideology of the capitalist world.

They were supposed to achieve a communistic society in a few generations too. Brezhnev had his "actually-existing socialism," you venture to introduce the even less plausible 'actually-existing anti-racism' to the record.


I don't know why you think it is an influence of Western racists, but Cook being murdered by the local tribes of a Pacific island is a historic fact. Why is it racist? It seems to me you see racism where there is none. According to your view, any mentioning of a crime conducted by non-whites is racist.

The underlying trope of 'those Pacific Island tribes are a bunch of cannibal savages' is one that developed over centuries of violent Western imperialism. Hence the apocryphal lurid stories of Europeans, such as Captain Cook, being devoured in those damp, distant jungles. That's what it is and where it comes from. You really don't see the common threads here?


"Harlem is a dangerous place to visit" is also a racist statement?

Have you examined why you believe this to be a true statement? Anyway, come visit and there's a 99.9% chance nothing untoward will befall you (unless you come attired as Bruce Willis from Die Hard 3).


If you say there isn't, it is your opinion. If I say there is it is my opinion. I don't see why your suppositions are better than mine.

Interpretations are always arbitrary, as the Shelob tunnel feminist reading shows.

Facts and Logic vs. Relativism :shrug:


And yet you don't exemplify.

See: most productions featuring crime in urban settings, anything from Baby Driver to Live and Let Die. There have also often been scenes like this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwBoa-NbNL8

As The Wire is famous for, nuanced portrayal of black villains or anti-heroes is possible, but execution matters and the trope of black violence or criminality is a common one throughout American cinema (to the point where a lot of foreigners - let alone other Americans - seem to form their preconceptions of African Americans based on Hollywood).


Judging from my observations, movie makers seem to hold this point of view. Or they are afraid to be stigmatized as racists.

Alternatively, film studios don't see a compelling need to make every bad character black or organize the production around the core principle that they need to portray black villains, which would be Birth of a Nation-tier racism.

Returning to the point, trends in characterization matter, and a distaste for seeing black actors in major or non-stereotypical roles says more about the viewer than the product or industry.


They were not punished. They stopped being party members since the Communist party was proclaimed illegal.

Policemen being fired is different from being not a party member any more.

They lost their jobs and positions (ostensibly) through no direct fault of their own. The point of the comparison is first that there's no reason to prioritize the career trajectories of a few people in developing necessary social and political reforms and second that people don't warrant lessened scrutiny for their participation in intolerable institutions; rather the opposite.

But by the by my impression is that ex-Communist apparatchiks came to dominate post-Soviet business and politics anyway, so maybe y'all would have liked to be more judgmental.


This is an unbeatable argument.

No, that was in the preceding posts.


And besides, I don't believe intimacy between us has reached the stage when we can say ты to each other.

Attitudes differ, but it figures you would be uptight about honorifics.


So "all people are equal" is also a xenophobic/racist/poor-discriminating slogan?

If you say "all people are equal so let's realize that ideal for marginalized peoples today," no. It's a question of hypocrisy.


If cops are largely racists then their brutality ought to be directed towards other non-white communities. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" singles out one of them disregading Hispanic or Asians. From this perspective the slogan can be considered racist.

The first sentence is correct. The second misconstrues what is actually going on, which is that BLM is both a particularistic cause associated with Black liberation and an umbrella movement coagulating a variety of parallel POC (or BIPOC if you prefer) causes. You'll see plenty of Brown Lives Matter and Native Lives Matter and so on at BLM demonstrations.

[Pannonian]

What is going on in Portland is insane. The word fascism has been overwrought in our current age, but this is a textbook case of what it looks like. No badges, no uniforms, no words. The men come in and take you. If this was a scene in Hong Kong the usual suspects would be bloviating about tyranny(which this is).

I am also concerned with the local response. The Portland mayor emphatically stated he didn't want them there and wouldn't take a meeting with them, whoever "they" are. So I guess these LEOs will simply operate with impunity, while the mayor tut-tuts them on twitter? Is this leadership? Do nothing works great when you're Joe Biden and cruising to an easy win. It works less great when you are a mayor.

On my worst days, it looks like Hawley 2024 and our very own Pacto del olvido. I hate it.

Over on this side of the water, the UK government has declared that it seeks to bar the judiciary from making political rulings. What political rulings means goodness knows, but it means the judiciary will be overruled by the government as the latter sees fit.

[Gilrandir]

The underlying trope of 'those Pacific Island tribes are a bunch of cannibal savages' is one that developed over centuries of violent Western imperialism. Hence the apocryphal lurid stories of Europeans, such as Captain Cook, being devoured in those damp, distant jungles. That's what it is and where it comes from. You really don't see the common threads here?


So Cook wasn't murdered in the jungle? It seems like whenever a crime or musconduct by non-whites is registered you would like to speak nothing of it because mentioning it is racist.



Have you examined why you believe this to be a true statement? Anyway, come visit and there's a 99.9% chance nothing untoward will befall you (unless you come attired as Bruce Willis from Die Hard 3).


https://maps.nyc.gov/crime/

Harlem isn't marked on the map but I believe it is around the Harlem river north of Manhattan and south of the Bronx.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8143646,-73.9381323,13z

The intensity of color shows a greater level of crime there than in the surrounding areas.




See: most productions featuring crime in urban settings, anything from Baby Driver to Live and Let Die. There have also often been scenes like this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwBoa-NbNL8

As The Wire is famous for, nuanced portrayal of black villains or anti-heroes is possible, but execution matters and the trope of black violence or criminality is a common one throughout American cinema (to the point where a lot of foreigners - let alone other Americans - seem to form their preconceptions of African Americans based on Hollywood).


I don't claim there are no black villains in the movies. I speak of ARCHVILLAINS like Terminator (the first one), all those Superman/Spiderman/Batman/Whateverman movies, Total recall, Jurassic park, Matrix, Marvel Universe, Die hard series, - in a word, anywhere where there is one character who epitomizes the evil. He is never black.



They lost their jobs and positions (ostensibly) through no direct fault of their own. The point of the comparison is first that there's no reason to prioritize the career trajectories of a few people in developing necessary social and political reforms and second that people don't warrant lessened scrutiny for their participation in intolerable institutions; rather the opposite.


Something like that (called люстрация) happened in Ukraine after 2014 when people who held official positions under Yanukovych were fired and forbidden to take such positions for some years (from 5 to 10). The same was done to the old милиция personnel. Later a lion's share of them filed suits and were restored in their positions/rights, moreover a compensation was paid to them.

I believe that in the litigous and lawyer-rich American society policemen who were fired through no fault of theirs can do the same.



But by the by my impression is that ex-Communist apparatchiks came to dominate post-Soviet business and politics anyway, so maybe y'all would have liked to be more judgmental.


See люстрация above.




Attitudes differ, but it figures you would be uptight about honorifics.


I don't know how much you are aware of the difference in usage between ты and вы, but I prefer the latter if we speak of people who hardly know each other.

[ReluctantSamurai]

So a small follow-up on the recent Gestapo-like activities in Portland, Oregon:

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone?fbclid=IwAR0S_Vq8Tvfuiy093ttISHNb_EnUE-iKncrtU3Fb9tXfvW7oY_42kMMyI2I




The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain additional authorities. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. No matter what CBP officers and Border Patrol agents think, our Constitution applies throughout the United States, including within this “100-mile border zone.”


For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.

Distance from Portland, Oregon to the Pacific Ocean......80 miles.

[Montmorency]

So Cook wasn't murdered in the jungle? It seems like whenever a crime or musconduct by non-whites is registered you would like to speak nothing of it because mentioning it is racist.

Attributing crimes and cannibalism to "savages" = racism. It's a narrative that emerges from a chauvinistic worldview, and it was disseminated around the white world as such in the context of the wider system of racial conventions.

There was no cannibalism, and Cook was killed in self-defense.


https://maps.nyc.gov/crime/

Harlem isn't marked on the map but I believe it is around the Harlem river north of Manhattan and south of the Bronx.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8143646,-73.9381323,13z

The intensity of color shows a greater level of crime there than in the surrounding areas.

Your proposition was that Harlem is a dangerous place to visit. Don't rely on stereotypes.


I don't claim there are no black villains in the movies. I speak of ARCHVILLAINS like Terminator (the first one), all those Superman/Spiderman/Batman/Whateverman movies, Total recall, Jurassic park, Matrix, Marvel Universe, Die hard series, - in a word, anywhere where there is one character who epitomizes the evil. He is never black.

I don't watch superhero movies, but I suppose black supervillains are unusual. The only one I can think of is Killmonger from Black Panther. You find he paucity of black supervillains or other characters in these movies complimentary to black people?


Something like that (called люстрация) happened in Ukraine after 2014 when people who held official positions under Yanukovych were fired and forbidden to take such positions for some years (from 5 to 10). The same was done to the old милиция personnel. Later a lion's share of them filed suits and were restored in their positions/rights, moreover a compensation was paid to them.

I believe that in the litigous and lawyer-rich American society policemen who were fired through no fault of theirs can do the same.

The bold is a fundamental misunderstanding of the American relationship to labor, as though police departments are like French automobile plants.

What standing would severed police have to litigate? An officer fired as an individual has recourse to whatever protections and reviews are in their contract, but at a large scale personnel reorganization is conducted by all employers with few constraints. (Under private employers in right-to-work states with non-unionized workforces, there are effectively no protections for the employee.) If a city wants to reduce employment in their police force according to some criteria, let alone disband police by democratic mandate, you'll have to be a lot more specific as to what legal limitations you think would apply.

If you would like to do the research, study the previous instances in American history where police departments have been subject to mass liquidation and tell me whether there's any case law arising from the courts in those instances. I don't think you'll find anything relevant to your supposition that those affected enjoy exorbitant privilege to their positions.


I don't know how much you are aware of the difference in usage between ты and вы, but I prefer the latter if we speak of people who hardly know each other.

I have a different and probably more limited context of usage than you do, but I only ever met one person who insisted on marking that boundary with me.


So a small follow-up on the recent Gestapo-like activities in Portland, Oregon:

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone?fbclid=IwAR0S_Vq8Tvfuiy093ttISHNb_EnUE-iKncrtU3Fb9tXfvW7oY_42kMMyI2I

Distance from Portland, Oregon to the Pacific Ocean......80 miles.

It's basically just a form of harassment, since as I read it the federal agents weren't really arresting people and would release a detainee as soon as they demanded it.

It's directly adjacent to "disappearing" dissidents though, a step or two below.

[ReluctantSamurai]

It's basically just a form of harassment, since as I read it the federal agents weren't really arresting people and would release a detainee as soon as they demanded it.

That's unclear:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/18/portland-federal-agents-protests-trump-mayor


Federal officers have charged at least 13 people with crimes related to the protests, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported on Thursday. Some have been detained by the federal courthouse, the scene of protests. Others were grabbed blocks away.

No comment on whether all were released or not. But FINALLY, the mayor of Portland, and Governor Kate Brown are getting sufficiently pissed off to threaten a lawsuit against the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Marshals Service, Customs and Border Protection, and Federal Protection Service. Should get interesting.

[Gilrandir]

Attributing crimes and cannibalism to "savages" = racism. It's a narrative that emerges from a chauvinistic worldview, and it was disseminated around the white world as such in the context of the wider system of racial conventions.


I see. Shakespeare was a racist because the only non-white character in his plays strangled his wife. (If it had happened in demoratic America OJ Thello undoubtedly would have been acquitted on a simple ground that he was a Moor). Harper Lee and Margaret Mitchel were racists because the black women in their novels were servants cooking for the disgusting white. The same is true of Kipling with the ship cook in Captains Courageous. Moreover, he also brought forth the image of a native (evidenlty non-white) boy who was a savage educated by animals. Haggard the racist in his Fair Margaret made his chief villain a person with Moorish blood and in King Solomon's mines he generally showed how dangerous it was for white people to go treasure-hunting in Africa (almost like Chukovsky). Jules Verne harped on the old theme of a black cook in The mysterious island and in A captain at fifteen he depicted Africa as a place were black people could be sold to slavery. Hardened racist! And if we remember Tolkien with his DARK lord Sauron from the BLACK land of Mordor and Morgoth The BLACK foe! And Conan Doyle who depicted a black hound of the Baskervilles!

There are people (like Freud) who see sex behind every motif. Others attribute what bad is happening around them to different conspiracies - of Jews, Masons, oil magnates, chauvinistic pigs, World Government, the Illuminated... You see a racist around each corner and behind each tree and discern racism in all words and actions. Looking good! Rock on!

The Russians are coming. The Russians are coming. They're right around. I've seen Russian soldiers. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russians_are_coming)



There was no cannibalism, and Cook was killed in self-defense.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook:
Tensions rose, and a number of quarrels broke out between the Europeans and Hawaiians at Kealakekua Bay. An unknown group of Hawaiians took one of Cook's small boats. The evening when the cutter was taken, the people had become "insolent" even with threats to fire upon them. Cook attempted to kidnap and ransom the King of Hawaiʻi, Kalaniʻōpuʻu.

The following day, 14 February 1779, Cook marched through the village to retrieve the king. Cook took the king (aliʻi nui) by his own hand and led him willingly away. One of Kalaniʻōpuʻu's favourite wives, Kanekapolei, and two chiefs approached the group as they were heading to the boats. They pleaded with the king not to go. An old kahuna (priest), chanting rapidly while holding out a coconut, attempted to distract Cook and his men as a large crowd began to form at the shore. The king began to understand that Cook was his enemy. As Cook turned his back to help launch the boats, he was struck on the head by the villagers and then stabbed to death as he fell on his face in the surf. He was first struck on the head with a club by a chief named Kalaimanokahoʻowaha or Kanaʻina (namesake of Charles Kana'ina) and then stabbed by one of the king's attendants, Nuaa.The Hawaiians carried his body away towards the back of the town, still visible to the ship through their spyglass. Four marines, Corporal James Thomas, Private Theophilus Hinks, Private Thomas Fatchett and Private John Allen, were also killed and two others were wounded in the confrontation.


No cannibalism but no self-defense either. Just a brawl. Or is it racist to call it a brawl and not self-defense if non-whites were one of the sides?

As for the cannibalism hype, it might have been prompted by the treatment of Cook's body. Being disembowled and dismembered suggests preparations for further meal.



Your proposition was that Harlem is a dangerous place to visit. Don't rely on stereotypes.


A high number of committed crimes makes a place dangerous to visit. It is not a stereotype but a fact underpinned by official statistics. And you offered a personal guarantee that people were safe there. As you put it,
Facts and Logic vs. Relativism . Hm... a tough choice!




I don't watch superhero movies, but I suppose black supervillains are unusual. The only one I can think of is Killmonger from Black Panther.


The bolded is a key word here.



You find he paucity of black supervillains or other characters in these movies complimentary to black people?


No. I find it the result of inner censorship by movie makers. They are afraid to do it and earn the repute of a racist. You would certainly be the one to deal around such charges.

I base my supposition on the tendencies that I observe in Hollywood. A couple of years ago there was an Oscar boycott by black actors when it turned out that there were no black nominees. That's a srtange logic to me when professionalism and quality are superseded by racial considerations, like "There MUST be black nominees even if the judges didn't find their performance adequate. Just because there must be racial balance in the industry".



The bold is a fundamental misunderstanding of the American relationship to labor, as though police departments are like French automobile plants.

What standing would severed police have to litigate? An officer fired as an individual has recourse to whatever protections and reviews are in their contract, but at a large scale personnel reorganization is conducted by all employers with few constraints. (Under private employers in right-to-work states with non-unionized workforces, there are effectively no protections for the employee.) If a city wants to reduce employment in their police force according to some criteria, let alone disband police by democratic mandate, you'll have to be a lot more specific as to what legal limitations you think would apply.

If you would like to do the research, study the previous instances in American history where police departments have been subject to mass liquidation and tell me whether there's any case law arising from the courts in those instances. I don't think you'll find anything relevant to your supposition that those affected enjoy exorbitant privilege to their positions.


It is not a misunderstanding, but perhaps the underestimation of the astuteness of lawyers who concoct contracts. In Ukraine all restorations and compensations are possible because legal procedures and stipulations weren't in strict obeyance to the law. In the litigous and lawyer-rich American society lawyers have learned to do their job well without incurring possible law suits.



I have a different and probably more limited context of usage than you do, but I only ever met one person who insisted on marking that boundary with me.


I don't know about the relations between you and the people you met and how many is one out of the unknown number. A possible explanation that it happened only once is that strangers are naturally polite and don't want to express dissatisfaction to a person who isn't well aware of the said differences (as they might presume).

Once my family had an American visitor who could speak Russian fairly well. She addressed each of my parents as ты, although she was more than twice as young as them and saw them for the first time. I was shocked (as well as they, I believe) but she was our guest so we didn't mention it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

However benign the intent, "The Poet of Empire" was most certainly a racist (a lot of his racism may well have been a product of systemic factors rather than animus, but none-the-less racism). Asking the USA to "Take up the White Man's Burden" can hardly be construed as anything BUT racist, however benign the intent in terms of furthering the lot of individuals. Nor would "Gunga Din" have worked at all as an ironic statement without a presumptive sense of innate superiority to the sepoy underpinning it.

[Montmorency]

I see. Shakespeare was a racist because the only non-white character in his plays strangled his wife. (If it had happened in demoratic America OJ Thello undoubtedly would have been acquitted on a simple ground that he was a Moor). Harper Lee and Margaret Mitchel were racists because the black women in their novels were servants cooking for the disgusting white. The same is true of Kipling with the ship cook in Captains Courageous. Moreover, he also brought forth the image of a native (evidenlty non-white) boy who was a savage educated by animals. Haggard the racist in his Fair Margaret made his chief villain a person with Moorish blood and in King Solomon's mines he generally showed how dangerous it was for white people to go treasure-hunting in Africa (almost like Chukovsky). Jules Verne harped on the old theme of a black cook in The mysterious island and in A captain at fifteen he depicted Africa as a place were black people could be sold to slavery. Hardened racist! And if we remember Tolkien with his DARK lord Sauron from the BLACK land of Mordor and Morgoth The BLACK foe! And Conan Doyle who depicted a black hound of the Baskervilles!

*sigh*

You're completely uninterested in objectively examining your assumptions or the assumptions of others that you share.


There are people (like Freud) who see sex behind every motif. Others attribute what bad is happening around them to different conspiracies - of Jews, Masons, oil magnates, chauvinistic pigs, World Government, the Illuminated... You see a racist around each corner and behind each tree and discern racism in all words and actions. Looking good! Rock on!

Despite your obscurantist attitude, if we can agree racism exists we can discern it.


The Russians are coming. The Russians are coming. They're right around. I've seen Russian soldiers.

How apropos of you to post that, seemingly unironically.


No cannibalism but no self-defense either. Just a brawl. Or is it racist to call it a brawl and not self-defense if non-whites were one of the sides?

As the accounts have it, Cook tried to attack and abduct Hawaiians. They fought back. It would be nice if there were no avarice on anyone's part and differences could be negotiated out, but that wasn't on offer.


As for the cannibalism hype, it might have been prompted by the treatment of Cook's body. Being disembowled and dismembered suggests preparations for further meal.

The Europeans didn't care what was actually going on, they just neatly slotted it into the pre-existing frameworks they had developed for non-Europeans. And they turned it into very well-developed ideology.


A high number of committed crimes makes a place dangerous to visit. It is not a stereotype but a fact underpinned by official statistics. And you offered a personal guarantee that people were safe there. As you put it, .

A high number of crimes compared to what? Dangerous compared to what? You're not basing your position on facts here.


No. I find it the result of inner censorship by movie makers. They are afraid to do it and earn the repute of a racist. You would certainly be the one to deal around such charges.

You'd have to be really committed to not engaging with my position if you think that.

That you imagine an absence of black major characters is a sign of inner censorship rather than a manifestation of the white-dominated society we live in, is just the problem. You come at it totally backwards.


I base my supposition on the tendencies that I observe in Hollywood. A couple of years ago there was an Oscar boycott by black actors when it turned out that there were no black nominees. That's a srtange logic to me when professionalism and quality are superseded by racial considerations, like "There MUST be black nominees even if the judges didn't find their performance adequate. Just because there must be racial balance in the industry".

Why do you assume that professionalism and quality are considerations normally taken into account, or that their evaluation is unquestionable? Why do you trust the overwhelmingly old white male judges? Is it because they're old white males, and you don't think that their intuitions should be gainsayed?

[rory_20_uk]

However benign the intent, "The Poet of Empire" was most certainly a racist (a lot of his racism may well have been a product of systemic factors rather than animus, but none-the-less racism). Asking the USA to "Take up the White Man's Burden" can hardly be construed as anything BUT racist, however benign the intent in terms of furthering the lot of individuals. Nor would "Gunga Din" have worked at all as an ironic statement without a presumptive sense of innate superiority to the sepoy underpinning it.

Is it OK to point out that almost everyone was and still is racist? Be that the Japanese (who very firmly hold themselves as a "race"), Chinese, Indian, European (oh dear - I'm now conflating geography with ethnicity - I'm gong to hell! Should I say caucasian, or white or just sign up to the nearest correction course), Arab or indeed one of the large number of others I've not listed? There never was, never has been and might never be a time when everyone didn't judge others on their skin tone, their nationality, their culture and their religion. And few times when most didn't either view themselves as better than others or at the very least hostile to outsiders. And the closer you zoom into an area the more divisions there are - I view myself coming from the Westcountry, Coming from Devon, I equally view Cornwall as a bunch of traitors who should be treated in the same manner as was done in the Highland Clearance and of course Totness is a bunch of deviants.

Those who built empires invariably engaged in cultural appropriation and suppression, iconoclasty and historical revisionism. Be that God's will, the superior culture or as members of a master race. They raped, pillaged, brutalised, stole and generally behaved as utter bastards because they won. Depending on the era depended on the thickness of the veneer over these simple facts. And over time, often another lot came along who did the same to them. Almost every invention was invented by people who had probably done some pretty crappy things. Every explorer equally did what it took to survive. And on it goes.

Since approximately 1900, we have slowly being trying to create a fable that there is a "right" way that everything should be done, starting with codes for warfare (mainly enforced on the loosers) and now ending up with deleting anyone and everyone in history who wouldn't be welcome at a UN summit in Geneva.

At the very least, can we not just have some sort of disclaimer that says "Anything that occurred more than one month ago should be viewed with the understanding it is probably morally suspect and would not be acceptable now; any person or event that is in any way viewed positively is not ignoring the fact that the individual or event probably had many other bad facets to it and a positive statement is not condoning all that the person or event said, thought or did and viewing things in terms of the time they lived in no way condones anything".

If nothing will stand up to close examination (and frankly, it probably won't) we can either just accept the reality of the world or else must live in the constant "now" where things just are since knowing anything more about it will only lead to celebrating the Fallen.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

Despite your obscurantist attitude, if we can agree racism exists we can discern it.


I might as well call your attitude conspiracy-mania.



A high number of crimes compared to what? Dangerous compared to what? You're not basing your position on facts here.


You have definitely failed to look at the map I linked to. I'll do it again:

https://maps.nyc.gov/crime/

Or is this map compiled by racist municipal authorities who aim to gainsay what Montmorency thinks of safe Harlem? :hide:



That you imagine an absence of black major characters is a sign of inner censorship rather than a manifestation of the white-dominated society we live in, is just the problem. You come at it totally backwards.


We are returning to the start of this argument. I wasn't speaking of major characters in general. I claimed that black SUPERHEROES were in evidence, but not black SUPERVILLAINS. It would be indeed a manifestation of the white-dominated society we live in if Hollywood spawned movies with black supervillains to show the society's stereotypes. Since it is the opposite I consider my explanation still holds.




As the accounts have it, Cook tried to attack and abduct Hawaiians. They fought back. It would be nice if there were no avarice on anyone's part and differences could be negotiated out, but that wasn't on offer.


I cited wikipedia that gave reasons why Cook tried to kidnap a Hawaiian chief. The kidnapping grew into a the brawl. Cause the brawl it was. No self-defense smoke-screen will serve.


The Europeans didn't care what was actually going on, they just neatly slotted it into the pre-existing frameworks they had developed for non-Europeans. And they turned it into very well-developed ideology.

I see it as a natural functioning of human mind. In pragmatics it is called presupposition when people interpret a message going by background knowledge. It is the information shared by the participants and taken for granted. Taking things for granted is a presupposition.

For example:
Statement: He has recovered.
Presupposition: He had been sick.

Presuppositions aren't always correct though:
Statement: The current king of France is bald.
Presupposition: France is ruled by a king.

Sometimes they are more complex:
Statement 1: He loves reading.
Statement 2: He bought a couple of books on Friday.
Presupposition: He will spend his weekened reading.

In this case presupposition may also be wrong because he may use books as a gift for his parents, as a prop under a table's leg or even as a fuel for his Sunday barbecue party. Yet the first presupposition seems the most likely.

The same I believe happened to the Cook story:

Statement 1: Hawaiians are known to be cannibals.
Statement 2: Cook's body after he had been murdered was disembowled and dismembered.
Presupposition: They were going to eat him and they actually did it.

So it was more like a natural thing to expect than racism. Especially if cannibalism was a kind of honoring the dead.
http://dawlishchronicles.blogspot.com/2015/02/an-island-paradise-or-place-of-danger.html#:~:text=Cannibalism%20appears%20to%20have%20been,death%20at%20Kealakekua%20in%201779.

Cannibalism appears to have been a ceremonial practice for the Hawaiians, associated with veneration for the dead, and the traditional preserving of the bones of chiefs. Portions of Captain Cook’s body were delivered to Lieutenant James King after his death at Kealakekua in 1779. This gesture was likely honorably meant, other portions having been allotted to important chiefs and priests. Kamehameha was rumored to have claimed Cook’s hair, the possession of which would have increased his own mana, or power and prestige.

BTW, the bolded was echoed in Vysotsky's song:

Но есть, однако же, еще предположенье,
Что Кука съели из большого уваженья.
Что всех науськивал колдун - хитрец и злюка:
- Ату, ребята! хватайте Кука!

Кто уплетет его без соли и без лука,
Тот сильным, смелым, добрым будет, вроде Кука!-




Why do you assume that professionalism and quality are considerations normally taken into account, or that their evaluation is unquestionable? Why do you trust the overwhelmingly old white male judges? Is it because they're old white males, and you don't think that their intuitions should be gainsayed?

I see. It's like when one tries to fire an employee because of his inadequate performance, lousy work ethic and rudeness to colleagues and he says: "You have fired me because I'm black."

You suggest appointing ANY black nominee just to maintain racial balance?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rory:

Good post, and I agree with all of your points. I started my adult life with just as many of the structural racist (and other ist) hang-ups as most in my generation. I am working to get rid of the notions that are, on reflection, patently silly in the face of evidence and logic. I will be engaged in this project until my death and it will almost certainly be incomplete at that time. I suspect this is true of a lot of folks.

Any number of cultures, persons, and even those who are "minorities" targeted by the ism in question have such views and structural "legacy code" by which they are influenced.

As a history buff, I am fully ready to judge past societies and individuals by modern idealized (and they are, as you rightly note, often honored in the breach) standards of conduct and morality -- But I simply cannot dismiss noting in parallel how well they conformed or didn't to the expected standards of THEIR day. Expecting a Sumerian merchant to refuse to work merchants who had slaves in their work gangs would be patently silly. It simply would not have occurred to either party to question the validity of slaves as a concept -- much less to push for reform. At the same time, I CAN decry the stultifying effects of chattel slavery on the intellectual and economic development of Sumeria and other ancient cultures.

[Montmorency]

23885

[ReluctantSamurai]

"Illustrated by Chad Wolf".:laugh4:

Oh how the world turns:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-53491514/belarus-election-snatched-from-the-streets-in-europe-s-last-dictatorship

Interesting about face by Lukashenko on Trump. First in 2016:

https://tass.com/world/912974?%3Futm_source=fark&utm_medium=refferal&utm_campaign=fark_tass.com


"Trump is a hardline pro-Amercian patriot, he is sure to put the US above all." "And we should think where our place will be, taking this policy into consideration," the Belarusian president noted. "He has no obligations concerning you and us, he didn’t promise anything," Lukashenko added.

Then in 2018:

https://www.belarus.by/en/press-center/speeches-and-interviews/lukashenko-considers-trump-an-extraordinary-politician_i_0000084481.html


I view U.S President Donald Trump as an extraordinary politician, although I do not agree with everything he does, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said in an interview to Belarus 1 TV channel, BelTA has learned.

And earlier this year:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2020/02/04/belarus-strongman-dangles-trump-putin-demand-respect/41137861/


Lukashenko raised the prospect of forging deeper ties with the U.S. as he prepares for talks with Putin on Friday amid tensions with Russia over energy prices and closer political integration. While he doesn’t consider “the Americans are such great friends of ours,” the era of frosty relations between Belarus and the U.S. is at an end, Lukashenko said. “We are establishing relations with the greatest empire, the leading country in the world,” he said.

Greatest empire? :inquisitive:

[Montmorency]

I might as well call your attitude conspiracy-mania.

It's not a conspiracy, it's reflexive defensiveness.


You have definitely failed to look at the map I linked to. I'll do it again:

https://maps.nyc.gov/crime/

Or is this map compiled by racist municipal authorities who aim to gainsay what Montmorency thinks of safe Harlem? :hide:

You made the racist assumption that this map entails your proposition that Harlem is dangerous, which it objectively cannot. You just took that for granted because of all the Hollywood scenes like the one I linked from National Lampoon, that inculcate the idea among foreigners and natives alike that black people = danger and that if you enter черный район then grievous bodily harm is imminent.

They're just movies.


We are returning to the start of this argument. I wasn't speaking of major characters in general. I claimed that black SUPERHEROES were in evidence, but not black SUPERVILLAINS. It would be indeed a manifestation of the white-dominated society we live in if Hollywood spawned movies with black supervillains to show the society's stereotypes. Since it is the opposite I consider my explanation still holds.

You believe Hollywood self-censors from producing powerful black characters with ambitious goals and authority, while it is more comfortable with black petty criminals and thugs, because it's overly-concerned with appearing racist. You're working too hard to arrive at the opposite of the most plausible appraisal.


I cited wikipedia that gave reasons why Cook tried to kidnap a Hawaiian chief. The kidnapping grew into a the brawl. Cause the brawl it was. No self-defense smoke-screen will serve.

So, then, you wouldn't be opposed to the Kentucky protesters abducting the White Panic couple from their lawn. :wall:

Once again we see the differential consideration afforded.


Statement 1: Hawaiians are known to be cannibals.

It is a problem that the Europeans believed this in the first place, and were willing to spread the rumor, and even more willing in future generations to accept its veracity and judge the Hawaiians against it.


I see. It's like when one tries to fire an employee because of his inadequate performance, lousy work ethic and rudeness to colleagues and he says: "You have fired me because I'm black."

You suggest appointing ANY black nominee just to maintain racial balance?

On the contrary, it is like assuming that any fired employee who is black must have been fired for cause. After all, you know how those blacks are...



Is it OK to point out that almost everyone was and still is racist? Be that the Japanese (who very firmly hold themselves as a "race"), Chinese, Indian, European (oh dear - I'm now conflating geography with ethnicity - I'm gong to hell! Should I say caucasian, or white or just sign up to the nearest correction course), Arab or indeed one of the large number of others I've not listed? There never was, never has been and might never be a time when everyone didn't judge others on their skin tone, their nationality, their culture and their religion. And few times when most didn't either view themselves as better than others or at the very least hostile to outsiders. And the closer you zoom into an area the more divisions there are - I view myself coming from the Westcountry, Coming from Devon, I equally view Cornwall as a bunch of traitors who should be treated in the same manner as was done in the Highland Clearance and of course Totness is a bunch of deviants.

Those who built empires invariably engaged in cultural appropriation and suppression, iconoclasty and historical revisionism. Be that God's will, the superior culture or as members of a master race. They raped, pillaged, brutalised, stole and generally behaved as utter bastards because they won. Depending on the era depended on the thickness of the veneer over these simple facts. And over time, often another lot came along who did the same to them. Almost every invention was invented by people who had probably done some pretty crappy things. Every explorer equally did what it took to survive. And on it goes.

Since approximately 1900, we have slowly being trying to create a fable that there is a "right" way that everything should be done, starting with codes for warfare (mainly enforced on the loosers) and now ending up with deleting anyone and everyone in history who wouldn't be welcome at a UN summit in Geneva.

At the very least, can we not just have some sort of disclaimer that says "Anything that occurred more than one month ago should be viewed with the understanding it is probably morally suspect and would not be acceptable now; any person or event that is in any way viewed positively is not ignoring the fact that the individual or event probably had many other bad facets to it and a positive statement is not condoning all that the person or event said, thought or did and viewing things in terms of the time they lived in no way condones anything".

If nothing will stand up to close examination (and frankly, it probably won't) we can either just accept the reality of the world or else must live in the constant "now" where things just are since knowing anything more about it will only lead to celebrating the Fallen.

~:smoking:

We could improve things somewhat. (Happy, Idaho?)


Rory:

Good post, and I agree with all of your points. I started my adult life with just as many of the structural racist (and other ist) hang-ups as most in my generation. I am working to get rid of the notions that are, on reflection, patently silly in the face of evidence and logic. I will be engaged in this project until my death and it will almost certainly be incomplete at that time. I suspect this is true of a lot of folks.

Any number of cultures, persons, and even those who are "minorities" targeted by the ism in question have such views and structural "legacy code" by which they are influenced.

As a history buff, I am fully ready to judge past societies and individuals by modern idealized (and they are, as you rightly note, often honored in the breach) standards of conduct and morality -- But I simply cannot dismiss noting in parallel how well they conformed or didn't to the expected standards of THEIR day. Expecting a Sumerian merchant to refuse to work merchants who had slaves in their work gangs would be patently silly. It simply would not have occurred to either party to question the validity of slaves as a concept -- much less to push for reform. At the same time, I CAN decry the stultifying effects of chattel slavery on the intellectual and economic development of Sumeria and other ancient cultures.

Good post. But I wouldn't even be so sure everyone saw slavery uncritically in X time period, even before modern times. Leaving aside the lack of documentation or common literacy, social values shape not just thought but the parameters of acceptable discourse. This was one of the major thematic arcs of "Huckleberry Finn", wasn't it? Sex, in general, is a big one always, though that's changing; we understand that people had all sorts of diverse ideas and preoccupations about sex long before they could converse openly about their experiences.

Life for people like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Maria_Child) is challenging! Some members here would probably hate to have her in the Backroom.


Lydia Maria Francis Child (born Lydia Maria Francis) (February 11, 1802 – October 20, 1880), was an American abolitionist, women's rights activist, Native American rights activist, novelist, journalist, and opponent of American expansionism.

Her journals, both fiction and domestic manuals, reached wide audiences from the 1820s through the 1850s. At times she shocked her audience as she tried to take on issues of both male dominance and white supremacy in some of her stories.

For what shouldn't even be a controversial example, imagine traveling back in time anywhere and sampling peasants on the following question: "Is it really cool for kings and bandits to pillage anybody they please?" Laws, ethical codes of conduct, and popular standards of leadership didn't just materialize out of nowhere one day.

There are many millions of people today who condone slavery. The safest bet is to project multifarious worldviews onto past societies, just as we acknowledge the existence of similar in the present.

[Gilrandir]

It's not a conspiracy, it's reflexive defensiveness.


You see, each of us believes his stance sober and measured and the opponent's stance unworthy. Let's stop at that because we evidently fail to prove the opposite to each other.



You made the racist assumption that this map entails your proposition that Harlem is dangerous, which it objectively cannot. You just took that for granted because of all the Hollywood scenes like the one I linked from National Lampoon, that inculcate the idea among foreigners and natives alike that black people = danger and that if you enter черный район then grievous bodily harm is imminent.
They're just movies.


They are. But they seem to reflect the entreched stereotype that turned out (it appears quite surprisingly for you) to be underpinned by the official data on the map. If you call official data racist for me to make my assumption then :shrug:




You're working too hard to arrive at the opposite of the most plausible appraisal.


Funny that I think the same of your attempts to see racism everywhere instead of the most plausible appraisals.



So, then, you wouldn't be opposed to the Kentucky protesters abducting the White Panic couple from their lawn. :wall:


I wouldn't if the White Panic couple had done some harm to the protesters (like the Hawaiians did when they stole a boat from Cook's crew).




It is a problem that the Europeans believed this in the first place, and were willing to spread the rumor, and even more willing in future generations to accept its veracity and judge the Hawaiians against it.


This problem doesn't cancel the way presuppositions work. Which what evidently happened in the Cook story. So no racism, just natural expectations.

[Montmorency]

You see, each of us believes his stance sober and measured and the opponent's stance unworthy. Let's stop at that because we evidently fail to prove the opposite to each other.

OK, but that's not an excuse.


They are. But they seem to reflect the entreched stereotype that turned out (it appears quite surprisingly for you) to be underpinned by the official data on the map. If you call official data racist for me to make my assumption then :shrug:


Leaving aside the question of how the data is constructed, let me break this down for you:

1. You stated that Harlem is dangerous. (Dangerous to be in, to live in, whatever it is.)
2. You chose Harlem because it is internationally famous as a black/Latino neighborhood.
3. You offered a city crime map as support for your statement.
4. You did not identify what evidence was present in the source to support your statement.

The link presents a precinct map of NYC with "Crimes"/1000 residents per precinct. Taking this as a measure of "danger" simpliciter, with no further definition - as one might naively do from the perspective you offered the link in - I set the time range of the tool to its maximum, Jan. 2019 through June 2020. Averaging the precincts that roughly compose the Greater Harlem area, we get 30.7 crimes per 1000 residents in 1.5 years. Comparing to the precincts that coincide with wealthy commercial hub Midtown Manhattan, the equivalent figure is 75.2 crimes per 1000 residents in 1.5 years.

By your crude measure, or at least the one presupposed beneath the innuendo, the area within a mile radius of the Bank of America tower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_Tower_(Manhattan)) is more than twice as "dangerous" as Harlem.

Let's face it, a black neighborhood being black is sufficient information for you to declare it dangerous. A descriptive term is available in the vernacular to apply to this sort of prejudice.


I wouldn't if the White Panic couple had done some harm to the protesters (like the Hawaiians did when they stole a boat from Cook's crew).

Captain Cook introduced diseases to the natives, stole from them, threatened them with guns, and tried to abduct their leader.

But some of them stole a dinghy, so. :wall:


Funny that I think the same of your attempts to see racism everywhere instead of the most plausible appraisals.

You're clearly willing to deny the reality of a disparate many well-known things, so I could see it as more a manifestation of oppositional contrarianism.


This problem doesn't cancel the way presuppositions work. Which what evidently happened in the Cook story. So no racism, just natural expectations.

Whether an expectation is "natural" - itself debatable - is separate from whether it is racist. I mark your comfort in normalizing the expectation that 'of course they would think the savages were a bunch of violent cannibals.' That you share the mindset of the explorers cannot exculpate it.

[Gilrandir]

OK, but that's not an excuse.


Your behavior is getting obnoxious. You present yourself as a supercilious judge who can dismiss or call the culprit (as he deems him) at will.




Leaving aside the question of how the data is constructed, let me break this down for you:

1. You stated that Harlem is dangerous. (Dangerous to be in, to live in, whatever it is.)
2. You chose Harlem because it is internationally famous as a black/Latino neighborhood.
3. You offered a city crime map as support for your statement.
4. You did not identify what evidence was present in the source to support your statement.

The link presents a precinct map of NYC with "Crimes"/1000 residents per precinct. Taking this as a measure of "danger" simpliciter, with no further definition - as one might naively do from the perspective you offered the link in - I set the time range of the tool to its maximum, Jan. 2019 through June 2020. Averaging the precincts that roughly compose the Greater Harlem area, we get 30.7 crimes per 1000 residents in 1.5 years. Comparing to the precincts that coincide with wealthy commercial hub Midtown Manhattan, the equivalent figure is 75.2 crimes per 1000 residents in 1.5 years.

By your crude measure, or at least the one presupposed beneath the innuendo, the area within a mile radius of the Bank of America tower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_Tower_(Manhattan)) is more than twice as "dangerous" as Harlem.

Let's face it, a black neighborhood being black is sufficient information for you to declare it dangerous. A descriptive term is available in the vernacular to apply to this sort of prejudice.



I see. The high number of crimes detected in South precinct of Manhattan makes the average greater than in Harlem (although the figure I arrived at was something like 54, but not 75 as you claim). But the intensity of color of both neighborhoods on the map is the same (with the exception of the notorious South precinct) which shows that both of them are dangerous places to visit. Which in no way cancels my claim that Harlem is dangerous. Moreover, if you view crime categories you will see that murders, rapes, and assults are greater in number in Harlem. So your statement that Harlem is 99% safe is an arbitrary one. Harlem and Manhattan are two most/equally dangerous neighborhoods of NYC.




Captain Cook introduced diseases to the natives, stole from them, threatened them with guns, and tried to abduct their leader.

But some of them stole a dinghy, so. :wall:


I'm 100% sure that Cook came to the Hawaii with the ultimate mission to spread diseases. You might as well start hating the Chinese for COVID. Waaaait a moment... Donnie boy, is that you?

As for other things that you mention, they did happen. But you stress only those that fit with your agenda disregarding the others or deeming them inessential.

So I may make the conclusion that you made about me:




You're clearly willing to deny the reality of a disparate many well-known things, so I could see it as more a manifestation of oppositional contrarianism.




Whether an expectation is "natural" - itself debatable - is separate from whether it is racist. I mark your comfort in normalizing the expectation that 'of course they would think the savages were a bunch of violent cannibals.' That you share the mindset of the explorers cannot exculpate it.

So the savages weren't violent? Or they weren't cannibals? And your counterarguments will start with "Yes, but it happened because the Europeans...."?

So I mark your insistence in explaining everything by racism.

As I have said, emotional investment precludes from seeing a real picture. Especially if you repeatedly bang your head against the wall.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Warning: Graphic Violence.

Kid holding boombox gets shot in the head (beanbag) by Federal troops. (https://v.redd.it/82vydoelyad51)

Is there anyone willing to defend this behavior?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Warning: Graphic Violence.

Kid holding boombox gets shot in the head (beanbag) by Federal troops. (https://v.redd.it/82vydoelyad51)

Is there anyone willing to defend this behavior?

I tend to use "troops" to indicate military/armed forces. These were 'agents' of a homeland security task force. Way too flipping militarized, I would say, but not troops as I would label such.

And that was assault/punitive(sadistic?) -- the bean bag rounds are supposed to be fired low and that was not a rushed shot during some attack. Who is staffing this inane effort?

[Montmorency]

Your behavior is getting obnoxious. You present yourself as a supercilious judge who can dismiss or call the culprit (as he deems him) at will.

From my perspective, you're saying increasingly-stupid :daisy: with zero reflection, and it's hard to talk to someone in that situation. Like, the beats of our discussion are some of the most basic :daisy: there is, not abstruse metaphysics or applied mechanics or, more pertinently, a detailed contention of practical social responsibilities. It's like being in the position of having to explain that water is wet but hearing that no, water is green and dry like dry wine!



But the intensity of color of both neighborhoods on the map is the same (with the exception of the notorious South precinct) which shows that both of them are dangerous places to visit.

No, it does not. The color on a map does not make a place dangerous to visit. This is a categorically spurious statement. Are you reading this back to yourself as you write? And if you came up to any New Yorker with that "notorious South precinct" drivel they would - well, I would like to say they would laugh in your face (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA), but contrary to another common stereotype New Yorkers are not especially rude with strangers. In all honesty they might earnestly try to correct your illusions of the most trafficked, most policed, and wealthiest areas of the city being unsafe, the saps.


although the figure I arrived at was something like 54, but not 75 as you claim

Both Greater Harlem and Midtown Manhattan comprise 5 precincts, if that helps.


Moreover, if you view crime categories you will see that murders, rapes, and assults are greater in number in Harlem.

There have been murders, rapes, and assaults in any area you are familiar with. Does that make it dangerous? If not, why not?

For reference, in 1990, when one could more reasonably call the area dangerous, the murder rate in Harlem was more than 10X what it is today.


Harlem and Manhattan are two most/equally dangerous neighborhoods of NYC.

Not only are neither dangerous (and no New Yorker who would consider Harlem dangerous would also think of Midtown as dangerous), the affluent residents of Midtown are generally safer than residents of Harlem, whereas you as a tourist would more likely be accosted or face property loss in Midtown than in Harlem, as tourists aggregate in the former - along with the people who target them for scams and petty theft or robbery. (Though Harlem is increasingly a tourist draw these days.)

In doubling down you're producing more and more outrageously-wrong statements.


So your statement that Harlem is 99% safe is an arbitrary one.

One could arbitrarily claim that Ukraine is a dangerous "place" on account of the thousands of murders that occur there. Or perhaps you could pop out and steal a neighbor's car, thus making your neighborhood dangerous by some mysterious accounting. If deferring to the Economist's rankings (https://safecities.economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Aug-5-ENG-NEC-Safe-Cities-2019-270x210-19-screen.pdf) (which at least have the virtue of attempting to develop rational metrics) New York is one of the safest big cities in the world.

Your usage of the word "dangerous" is arbitrary. You offer no concept of danger other than colors on a map or a catalogue of undifferentiated Crime-with-a-capital-C, and I suspect you came into this thinking a purely intuitive utterance unburdened by substance would communicate something agreed-upon to me and pass beneath comment, and when I didn't respond as expected you cast about for some way to associate Harlem with crime without thinking through the argument. The problem is I don't hold the premise that Black/Urban = Scary, and I am interested in useful truths. In reality, things like one's risk of being violently victimized or suffering an infrastructure, industrial, or traffic accident - what I would relate to "danger" over an aggregate measure of tax fraud and graffiti - is overwhelmingly dictated by one's demographic status, hyperlocal geography, social networks, and lifestyle. These can be empirically assessed and aren't captured by motivated and essentialist reasoning.

Let's take the time though to unravel just how confused your approach is. It can either designate almost any urban space as dangerous, which would be meaningless, or you can introduce ad hoc adjustments to arrive at any predetermined conclusion, which would also be meaningless. Again constraining ourselves to the crime map, I can focus on murders as it makes no difference in your framework and it's a convenient simplification for the exercise. In 2019 there were 24 murders in Greater Harlem, for a population of ~297000, making the murder rate 8.1/100K inhabitants. According to the US Census Bureau Estimate, the population of New York in 2019 was 8.337 million, with 319 murders according to the NYPD (https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs-en-us-city.pdf), producing a murder rate of 3.8/100K inhabitants. That would, in precise language, make Harlem in 2019 a place with about twice the murder rate of New York as a whole in 2019.

Referring to Wikipedia's list of countries by intentional homicide rates for comparison (which, to be clear, does not offer a valid or informative point of comparison, but we don't care about such things here), Harlem's 2019 murder rate is roughly Russia's intentional homicide rate in 2018, and New York's 2019 murder rate is roughly Pakistan's intentional homicide rate in 2018. Unless "danger" is synonymous with "official count of criminal killings," this does not mean that Harlem is as safe or dangerous as Russia, or even that Pakistan is in some sense safer than Russia. It would be a further escalation of idiotism to glance at the other numbers listed on the Wiki page and confidently declare that Ukraine is exactly 1.25 times as DaNgErOuS as the United States, and exactly 2.59 times as dAngERoSu as Belarus - or that Ukraine is three-fourths as dnnghhreRhoHoo as Harlem.

So we can glean nothing but gibberish from your non-existent parameters; if you intend to communicate something more informative, don't double down on an instinct that would maneuver you to rate Syria as among the safest countries on the planet. If you want to say a place is dangerous, explain what you mean and supply evidence. If there was never anything more to this than enforcing a presupposition of perceived notoriousness of 'notoriously'-black neighborhoods, just drop it outright.



I'm 100% sure that Cook came to the Hawaii with the ultimate mission to spread diseases.

Disease, of disparate impact between populations, was a direct harm suffered by the natives from encountering the explorers, among the other harms listed (which included explicit aggression). For some reason, these harms are dismissed as irrelevant but the temporary harm to Europeans of the non-violent larceny of a rowboat becomes the nub of the story. The worldview you're presenting is that the intent of European people is paramount in assessing them, and even if they had an evil intent then those who bear that intent somehow had it coming anyway, such as if they dared to resist the Europeans in any fashion. Regardless of the facts of the situation, whites are thus always insulated from fault.


As for other things that you mention, they did happen. But you stress only those that fit with your agenda disregarding the others or deeming them inessential.

A neutral observer who treats the Hawaiians and Europeans as fungible human units cannot make the judgments you take for granted. To designate Cook the justified hero or victim of the story is to make a value judgement elevating his person or mission over the objectively damaged interests of a great number of people.


So the savages weren't violent? Or they weren't cannibals?

They were no more violent or cannibal than the Europeans, and furthermore were not the instigators of conflict. The explorers didn't apprehend these facts, or didn't have an interest in affirming them. Fair enough, the whole lot were a band of rough mercenaries far from comfort or restraint - what's to gainsay a flattering lie or two? The problem is that lies became civilizational dogma, and you don't care to move past that perspective, passed on to you tenth-hand, to arrive at the "real picture." What's your attachment to old propaganda?

Let's review what has happened with this line of discussion.

I pointed out that racist ideas about indigenous peoples filtered their way throughout European cultures in early modernity and became accepted wisdoms embedded in a coherent supremacist ideology. After trying to sustain the false claim that people within the Soviet Union had erased all knowledge and ideas from before 1917, you denied that a Soviet-era song relied on any racist ideas because they referenced true history, even though it was not true history but a prejudicial trope introduced by bad actors that had filtered its way throughout the modern European canon about 'what those savages are like.' A normal thing to do at this point would be to acknowledge one's mistakes and update one's priors.


As I have said, emotional investment precludes from seeing a real picture.

This is possible. How can we assess whether someone has succumbed to an emotional investment that precludes them from seeing the real picture? Well, one might trap themselves into making an increasingly-preposterous array of false statements (howlers), deny any potential of wrong beliefs in themselves, evade major points of the discussion, and plaintively accuse the other party of conspiracism and delusion. They might also display a lack of self-awareness.

[Gilrandir]

So, let's draw a bottomline of our debate by reiterating its highlights:

Is Africa a dangerous place to visit?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpxva12Kjso (starting from 8.48)

It is, but mentioning it is racist.

Is Harlem a dangerous place to visit?
Ditto. Besides, other neighborhoods are equally dangerous and you(meaing me) misinterpert the official data. Better look at Ukraine which is even more dangerous.

Are disparaging remarks made about Africa by black Americans racist?
Yes. But it happens because whites teach blacks to say that and the latter are too pure and naive souls to discern the guiles of the white aimed at propagating racism.

Are all people equal?
It is a racist slogan. Some people's lives matter more than other people's lives.

Does burying a hardened criminal in a golden casket mean venerating him?
No, it's a whim of the family and the sponsor, which has nothing to do venerating him.

Were BLM protests accompanied by looting and rioting?
Mentioning it is racist since it besmears their noble cause.

Is kissing black men's boots by whites racist?
No, it is an individual fact that proves nothing, nutjobs are numerous among all races. But were it the other way around it would be flagrant racism.

Was "deliberate repeated geographic mistake" by a black American student racist?
No, it is a sign of Americans' ignorance/self-centeredness. But if you had responded in the same manner it would have been glaring racism because there are four centuries of slavery behind him.

Was acquitting OJ Simpson just because he was black racist?
No, it is an individual fact that proves nothing. Instead, there are hundreds of cases when black people are incarcerated for nothing. But if a white man were acquitted on the same reason it would be racism.

Are black cops responsible for the racism in police departments?
They resist it but unfortunately they keep the code of honor of the organization.

Is the absence of Oscar black nominees racist?
Yes, they should have found ANY black actor to nominate him to keep the racial balance.

Why are black supervillains as good as absent from movies?
It is a disparate fact that has nothing to do with racism, who cares why it happens.

Were natives of the Pacific cannibals?
They were, but putting it this way is racist. Instead, we should say that native tribes had unique cultural rites of honoring the murdered enemies (killed exclusively in self-defense). These rites were intentionally misinterpreted by European racists to show their supremacy over savages.

Besides, my manner of holding discussion is inadequate which is explained by my evidently obscurantist ideology.

Have I missed anything?

[edyzmedieval]

Gentlemen, let me remind you - at all times, arguments & discussion should be done in a civil, elegant, educated and sophisticated manner.

[Montmorency]

Is Africa a dangerous place to visit?

(starting from 8.48)

It is, but mentioning it is racist.

Naturally I watched the video, and noted some neat narrative devices. They begin by showing a blonde Russian lady variously riding in a Bentley, passing a suburb of mansions and the gleaming modern high-rises of the city of Johannesburg, remarking on how clean and "civilized" it looks, and discussing the commodity wealth of the area in gold and diamonds, before going silent and running a spooky montage of a descent into decrepit Rock Bottom (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ofevs). With the camera variously in the Bentley with the Russian lady, or ahead capturing their movement. Next, a clip show reminds us that under apartheid this part of the city used to be White (а тёмнокожим вход бил запрещен); the black Africans were consigned to shantytowns. With that context, the clip you want me to see plays out as follows:

Set scene with another blonde Russian lady walking down a street with the cameraman two meters ahead. She begins by turning to look directly at her soon-to-be assailant. As she passes him, he comes up and grabs her, saying "Stop, I'm taking the money." The cameraman immediately charges towards them to - get closeups of both their faces and get a steady shot of their brief struggle. The subject runs down the street, and the assailant follows along at a jog that the camera can keep pace with. 5 seconds later they all stop, and the tearful woman gives the guy... $2; he grabs it without looking and walks off. 30 seconds later, a white guy in a van - ostensibly a stranger - pulls up and carries them away.

You should be more discerning about the authenticity of content in entertainment vlogging that happens to align with your preconceptions. That said, I would readily admit that Johannesburg is more dangerous than New York City. But Africa and visiting Africa was never a topic in this thread, unless I have forgotten a step of its winding course. To be clear, Harlem is not Africa, no matter how many black people might live there. Or - wait, I remember now, you're saying an early-20th century poem with maximum Dark Continent energy


«Африка ужасна,
Да-да-да!
Африка опасна,
Да-да-да!
Не ходите в Африку,
Дети, никогда!»

Africa is awful,
yes-yes-yes!
Africa is dangerous,
yes-yes-yes!
Don't go to Africa,
children, never!

was not based on racist premises because Africa really is dangerous, which you propose to demonstrate with a staged scene involving an African mugger (does he go by Barmaley?) attacking a blonde Russian woman in 2017.

Ask yourself why you're so invested in going out of your way to sustain the trope of Danger accompanying Black spaces around the world. We know crime exists in Africa, there is no need to dramatize it with the stock characters of blonde white damsel and black brute. It's not rational. (https://www.tourdom.ru/hotline/professionalnye-otzyvy/opasna-li-afrika/)


По его словам, сейчас туризм везде как равноопасен, так и равнобезопасен.



Is Harlem a dangerous place to visit?
Ditto. Besides, other neighborhoods are equally dangerous and you(meaing me) misinterpert the official data. Better look at Ukraine which is even more dangerous.

No criteria of danger were offered or assessed other than the existence of crime. Whatever implicit criteria that could be inferred were not validated; there was no basis for taking them as a measure of danger in any sense. If applied, to apply such a measure consistently would produce absurd and useless results in terms of protecting oneself. If not applied consistently but with special pleading, the output would be even worse. I specifically chose Midtown for comparison because anyone who knows something about New York would recognize the absurdity of painting it as an unsafe place. That you walked right into that without a second thought was shocking to me.


But it's not intrinsically wrong to think that Harlem is dangerous, or that any part of New York or anywhere else is dangerous. That is to say, danger as a genuine subjective concept here is difficult to contest. It doesn't have to mean anything useful or usable or sensible. For all I know, you think Ukraine and Kiev and wherever you live are dangerous places. Maybe you think big cities are automatically dangerous, or maybe a particular geography can be defined as dangerous if more than one or two violent crimes have occurred there. I can't really contest a personal sentiment like that, nor would I be interested in doing so. I'm even sure someone out there operates on constant fear no matter where they go, such that nowhere isn't dangerous for them.

But in the final estimation, you've boxed yourself in. You could submit Ukraine as a dangerous country and Kiev a dangerous city, but then it would have seemed motivated to name Harlem out of all the other "dangerous" places in the world. You could submit that Ukraine and Kiev are not dangerous places according to some internal calibration you maintain in contradiction to the spurious appeals you tried to pass by me, while maintaining that Harlem simply must be dangerous for some mysterious reason, but that would reveal the root of this exercise as a pretense to conjure purely stereotypical imagery - in the context of a discussion of racial politics.

Remember that I did not hypnotize you or otherwise induce you to say what you've said. I hope you'll come to see the irony in uncritically endorsing multiple racially-biased tropes toward the project of denying that there are racist tropes.


Are all people equal?
It is a racist slogan. Some people's lives matter more than other people's lives.

I thought we agreed that the problem was in hypocritically denying the equality of Black people. If the slogan of the moment were "all people are equal," one could complain that it doesn't center the experience of Black people, but it would not be considered as objectionable as the real counterslogan, which is that contrary to Black Lives Matter, "All Lives Matter."


Does burying a hardened criminal in a golden casket mean venerating him?
No, it's a whim of the family and the sponsor, which has nothing to do venerating him.

"Hardened criminal" and "venerating" are very charged subjective assessments, and it was always strange that you would feel so strongly about them.


Were BLM protests accompanied by looting and rioting?
Mentioning it is racist since it besmears their noble cause.

What is your point in mentioning them? Others discussed the issue in the thread.


Is kissing black men's boots by whites racist?
No, it is an individual fact that proves nothing, nutjobs are numerous among all races. But were it the other way around it would be flagrant racism.

I wish you had as profound a reaction about the endless parade of white boots on black necks as you did about the very existence of a black hate group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites).


Was "deliberate repeated geographic mistake" by a black American student racist?
No, it is a sign of Americans' ignorance/self-centeredness. But if you had responded in the same manner it would have been glaring racism because there are four centuries of slavery behind him.

What is the contrast that you are envisioning here? The closest parallel (far-fetched may it be) I can imagine is: A black Cameroonian or Namibian visiting America and being persistently mislabeled as Nigerian, or respectively South African, by a white American, with the latter as well as other Americans tending to give more care to other African nationalities. But in reality most Americans (of any ethnicity) do not have a masterful grip of African nationalities, Americans do have a tendency to lump Eastern European (especially ex-Soviet) countries in with Russia, and Americans do have a tendency to mind the distinctions between Western European countries. Context strikes again, even if you don't want to acknowledge it, and that context includes a distinction between your personal slight as a Ukrainian visitor to a foreign country, born of lingering learned habits of US-Soviet rivalry, and the universal, material, black experience of oppression. The black American enjoys his Americanness, but the white Ukrainian enjoys his whiteness.

(The guy who insisted on calling you Russian against your wishes was still being an ass, of course.)


Was acquitting OJ Simpson just because he was black racist?


He was not acquitted just because he was black and it's bizarre that you think that.


No, it is an individual fact that proves nothing. Instead, there are hundreds of cases when black people are incarcerated for nothing.

IF it were the case that OJ Simpson were acquitted just for being black - and it is not - to state your observation in bold is to instantly refute your emotional premise that we should be concerned about the racial implications of OJ's acquittal.

Unless you felt it a matter of lesser disgrace for a hundred innocent black defendants be deprived of their rights than one guilty black defendant go free.


But if a white man were acquitted on the same reason it would be racism.

Would you care to read about "white privilege?" You might answer some of your questions.

To put it in a way Idaho might approve of: If you're black, you can be made to suffer for being black. If you're white, you will never suffer for being white. (Being reminded of this fact is not a form of suffering.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu4dupoC7EE


Is the absence of Oscar black nominees racist?
Yes, they should have found ANY black actor to nominate him to keep the racial balance.

You will of course have a hard time finding someone to endorse these red herrings, but the system of (predominantly old white male) elites controlling the distribution of prestige to actors and creators is demonstrably racially biased, and it should be obvious in principle why it would be so.


Why are black supervillains as good as absent from movies?
It is a disparate fact that has nothing to do with racism, who cares why it happens.

You believe Hollywood self-censors from producing powerful black characters with ambitious goals and authority, while it is more comfortable with black petty criminals and thugs, because it's overly-concerned with appearing racist. You're working too hard to arrive at the opposite of the most plausible appraisal.


Were natives of the Pacific cannibals?
They were, but putting it this way is racist. Instead, we should say that native tribes had unique cultural rites of honoring the murdered enemies (killed exclusively in self-defense). These rites were intentionally misinterpreted by European racists to show their supremacy over savages.

They generally weren't, and lying about it is racist - but much worse to sustain the lie years down the line when you have the opportunity to learn otherwise. Even worse than that to insist that they were cannibals when you are directly, repeatedly, informed that they were not. That is even worse than a Ukrainian being called a Russian. At least no one denigrated you for what those savages in Leningrad did, the way they murdered their own people for the flavor.


Besides, my manner of holding discussion is inadequate which is explained by my evidently obscurantist ideology.

At some point you should really account for the barrage of false statements, misrepresentations, and red herrings you've leveled. It's kind of insulting.


Have I missed anything?

A lot. Stop picking battles where you are increasingly and undeniably wrong. From your perspective you're frustrated that I talk so much and (to you) opaquely about racism, but your reactions consistently demonstrate why the conversation is so important and relevant. Do better.

[Gilrandir]

Naturally I watched the video, and noted some neat narrative devices. They begin by showing a blonde Russian lady variously riding in a Bentley, passing a suburb of mansions and the gleaming modern high-rises of the city of Johannesburg, remarking on how clean and "civilized" it looks, and discussing the commodity wealth of the area in gold and diamonds, before going silent and running a spooky montage of a descent into decrepit Rock Bottom (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ofevs). With the camera variously in the Bentley with the Russian lady, or ahead capturing their movement. Next, a clip show reminds us that under apartheid this part of the city used to be White (а тёмнокожим вход бил запрещен); the black Africans were consigned to shantytowns. With that context, the clip you want me to see plays out as follows:

Set scene with another blonde Russian lady walking down a street with the cameraman two meters ahead. She begins by turning to look directly at her soon-to-be assailant. As she passes him, he comes up and grabs her, saying "Stop, I'm taking the money." The cameraman immediately charges towards them to - get closeups of both their faces and get a steady shot of their brief struggle. The subject runs down the street, and the assailant follows along at a jog that the camera can keep pace with. 5 seconds later they all stop, and the tearful woman gives the guy... $2; he grabs it without looking and walks off. 30 seconds later, a white guy in a van - ostensibly a stranger - pulls up and carries them away.

You should be more discerning about the authenticity of content in entertainment vlogging that happens to align with your preconceptions.


1. All women in the video (I suspect you are biased against the blondes) are not Russian. They are Ukrainian. Speaking Russian. And they are not random vloggers. It is a TV travel show with ten years of history behind it. Called Орел и Решка. Google it.

2. You summary of the video: it was a staged one and even if not, - 2$!!! C'mon, man, white blondes in Africa shouldn't be misers! What about being scared as hell when a guy rushes at her and grabs her at tries to take away her things? Nah, a white blonde should have known better than to go past an unassuming local.



That said, I would readily admit that Johannesburg is more dangerous than New York City. But Africa and visiting Africa was never a topic in this thread, unless I have forgotten a step of its winding course. To be clear, Harlem is not Africa, no matter how many black people might live there. Or - wait, I remember now, you're saying an early-20th century poem with maximum Dark Continent energy



was not based on racist premises because Africa really is dangerous, which you propose to demonstrate with a staged scene involving an African mugger (does he go by Barmaley?) attacking a blonde Russian woman in 2017.

Ask yourself why you're so invested in going out of your way to sustain the trope of Danger accompanying Black spaces around the world. We know crime exists in Africa, there is no need to dramatize it with the stock characters of blonde white damsel and black brute. It's not rational. (https://www.tourdom.ru/hotline/professionalnye-otzyvy/opasna-li-afrika/)






No criteria of danger were offered or assessed other than the existence of crime. Whatever implicit criteria that could be inferred were not validated; there was no basis for taking them as a measure of danger in any sense. If applied, to apply such a measure consistently would produce absurd and useless results in terms of protecting oneself. If not applied consistently but with special pleading, the output would be even worse. I specifically chose Midtown for comparison because anyone who knows something about New York would recognize the absurdity of painting it as an unsafe place. That you walked right into that without a second thought was shocking to me.


But it's not intrinsically wrong to think that Harlem is dangerous, or that any part of New York or anywhere else is dangerous. That is to say, danger as a genuine subjective concept here is difficult to contest. It doesn't have to mean anything useful or usable or sensible. For all I know, you think Ukraine and Kiev and wherever you live are dangerous places. Maybe you think big cities are automatically dangerous, or maybe a particular geography can be defined as dangerous if more than one or two violent crimes have occurred there. I can't really contest a personal sentiment like that, nor would I be interested in doing so. I'm even sure someone out there operates on constant fear no matter where they go, such that nowhere isn't dangerous for them.

But in the final estimation, you've boxed yourself in. You could submit Ukraine as a dangerous country and Kiev a dangerous city, but then it would have seemed motivated to name Harlem out of all the other "dangerous" places in the world. You could submit that Ukraine and Kiev are not dangerous places according to some internal calibration you maintain in contradiction to the spurious appeals you tried to pass by me, while maintaining that Harlem simply must be dangerous for some mysterious reason, but that would reveal the root of this exercise as a pretense to conjure purely stereotypical imagery - in the context of a discussion of racial politics.


A short rundown of your stance: there are a lot of dangerous places in the world (including Kyiv and Ukraine - I agree, why not?), but you can't mention some of them (Africa and Harlem) not to sound racist.



What is your point in mentioning them? Others discussed the issue in the thread.


Because many people tend to play them down not to sound racist.



I wish you had as profound a reaction about the endless parade of white boots on black necks as you did about the very existence of a black hate group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites).


You intentionally try to put into my mouth words that I never said or forget what I did say. I more than once repeated my stance on ANY boots on ANY necks. But you choose to see what fits with your
very charged subjective assessments :shrug:



The black American enjoys his Americanness, but the white Ukrainian enjoys his whiteness.

*sigh* Again a
very charged subjective assessment

The white Ukrainian enjoys nothing. He resents obtuse arrogance. Which he never responded to in kind.



He was not acquitted just because he was black and it's bizarre that you think that.
IF it were the case that OJ Simpson were acquitted just for being black - and it is not - to state your observation in bold is to instantly refute your emotional premise that we should be concerned about the racial implications of OJ's acquittal.


It is true, his race wasn't the reason for acquittal. Yet race factored greatly into the verdict, which it shouldn't. That is why we should be concerned about the racial implications of OJ's acquittal. You seem to be concerned about the racial implications of all other events - from children's doggerels to cannibalism. Not about OJ, somehow.



Unless you felt it a matter of lesser disgrace for a hundred innocent black defendants be deprived of their rights than one guilty black defendant go free.


It is a matter of disgrace if a single gulity person should be acquitted. Race doesn't matter. For you it seems it does - because there are four centuries of slavery behind them. So you try to weigh up hundreds against smaller numbers. The counting doesn't matter. The guilt does.




To put it in a way Idaho might approve of: If you're black, you can be made to suffer for being black. If you're white, you will never suffer for being white. (Being reminded of this fact is not a form of suffering.)


That's doublethink at its best: you can't remind blacks about their skin color which you can very well do with whites.




You will of course have a hard time finding someone to endorse these red herrings, but the system of (predominantly old white male) elites controlling the distribution of prestige to actors and creators is demonstrably racially biased, and it should be obvious in principle why it would be so.

You believe Hollywood self-censors from producing powerful black characters with ambitious goals and authority, while it is more comfortable with black petty criminals and thugs, because it's overly-concerned with appearing racist. You're working too hard to arrive at the opposite of the most plausible appraisal.


I see. My arguments are always either red herring or working too hard. Except that they aren't arguments but facts.

Your arguments are a paragon of objectivity and are never far-fetched. Rock on.



They generally weren't, and lying about it is racist - but much worse to sustain the lie years down the line when you have the opportunity to learn otherwise. Even worse than that to insist that they were cannibals when you are directly, repeatedly, informed that they were not.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism

Cannibalism was practised in New Guinea and in parts of the Solomon Islands, and flesh markets existed in some parts of Melanesia. Fiji was once known as the "Cannibal Isles". Cannibalism has been well documented in much of the world, including Fiji , the Amazon Basin, the Congo, and the Māori people of New Zealand.


Now what that would be -
the barrage of false statements, misrepresentations, and red herrings , white supremacy, racism, obscurantism or simple lying? Are you still insulted by stark facts?



Stop picking battles where you are increasingly and undeniably wrong.

Isn't the bold a
very charged subjective assessment ?

A translation of this stement of yours:
Being on a moral high ground (as you think) gives you unmitigated temerity to be right even before the debate starts. Something like "Don't you dare to question the correctness of my opinion". :hail:



From your perspective you're frustrated that I talk so much and (to you) opaquely about racism, but your reactions consistently demonstrate why the conversation is so important and relevant.


The importance and relevance are gauged agaisnt the result. The latter boils down to my realizing after tons of words even more that being emotionally invested you tend to see one side of the story only, get angry at people who try to dispute your attitude, and simplify the versatility of motifs by reducing them to racism. Is this what you have been trying to prove? Hardly.



Do better.

This is not the first attempt to try to sound teacher-like to me. Do differently.

[Viking]

If you're white, you will never suffer for being white.

Of course you can. Generally speaking, it seems that most of the time when inter-ethnic relations are discussed in a US-aware context, meta perspectives are thrown out of the window.

[Montmorency]

1. All women in the video (I suspect you are biased against the blondes) are not Russian. They are Ukrainian. Speaking Russian. And they are not random vloggers. It is a TV travel show with ten years of history behind it. Called Орел и Решка. Google it.

I am familiar with the concept of reality TV, which only speaks to my point. But I take your correction.

Blonde is the canonical apex of the white woman hierarchy, at least in the West.


2. You summary of the video: it was a staged one

Correct. Postmodern reification of what is "truer than true" (c.f. Catch-22, All the Things They Carried) can have its place, but when your message is 'Africa is eo ipso dangerous and it is not racist to interject so', embedding a video containing multiple classically racist tropes as an authentic article of an African mugging a European woman as supporting material is counterproductive. It would be bad enough to condemn a continent and a race on the basis of a single crime, but that it was a TV scene makes it worse.

This is why I scoff at people who assume everyone always marks a sharp divide between fiction and realty. Representation matters, and scenes like this one and the clip from National Lampoon's Vacation I embedded earlier are enduringly absorbed as reality by many viewers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwBoa-NbNL8

By the way, here is a very real video of aggressive police unjustly harassing a group of young men of color.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN_98uXT0qk


A short rundown of your stance: there are a lot of dangerous places in the world (including Kyiv and Ukraine - I agree, why not?), but you can't mention some of them (Africa and Harlem) not to sound racist.

I disagree that Harlem is dangerous. But being a purely subjective label, it could be that you have applied some legitimate definition of danger to include Harlem. So what is the context in which you brought it up? You were dismissing the poet Chukovsky's eremiad on Africa as being innocuous and non-racist in its stereotypical concern with the people and animals of that place, in the expectation that it would also be uncontroversial and non-racist to enumerate Harlem as a dangerous place. (The logic of the juxtaposition was never clear in the first place.)

I tried to get at why you would mention Harlem in the first place, and why you thought it should go without elaboration that Harlem is dangerous. Of questionable relevance to the discussion of the poem thought it may still have been, why was your first instinct to invoke Harlem, rather than Mt. Everest or a football riot? Why was your sole articulable criterion for danger the existence of crime, which I have not known to be a sufficient condition even in casual conversation? In the end the common overriding element of danger was that both places are famously populated by black people. In a thread about racism, where you've relentlessly discouraged the framing of racism as a sop to undeserving agitators.

Can you see it from the perspective of someone who minimally accepts the existence of anti-black racism, why they might scrutinize someone who works from the premise that blacks are overly-entitled, dangerous, coddled, attention hogs in a thread about, among other things, systematic police violence against black persons?


Because many people tend to play them down not to sound racist.

Choosing to emphasize them suggests one thinks they are a relatively-important issue, which demands justification.


You intentionally try to put into my mouth words that I never said or forget what I did say. I more than once repeated my stance on ANY boots on ANY necks. But you choose to see what fits with your :shrug:

Your words don't match up to the stated ideal. For example:


It is true, his race wasn't the reason for acquittal. Yet race factored greatly into the verdict, which it shouldn't. [These two sentences may contradict each other] That is why we should be concerned about the racial implications of OJ's acquittal. You seem to be concerned about the racial implications of all other events - from children's doggerels to cannibalism. Not about OJ, somehow.

It is up to you whether you want to view a unanimous jury decision acquitting a black man as greatly racially-motivated, but one could take that for given arguendo. You would still be leaving unexplained what the racial implications of the acquittal are, how they manifest anywhere in American society, and why you ultimately perform insistent concern over the possibility that a black person somewhere might get an undeserved break while giving not an ounce's worth of regard to the millions who suffer documented material and moral oppression. Isn't that - starkly differential consideration?


It is a matter of disgrace if a single gulity person should be acquitted. Race doesn't matter. For you it seems it does - because there are four centuries of slavery behind them. So you try to weigh up hundreds against smaller numbers. The counting doesn't matter. The guilt does.

Would you prefer X number of patriotic Ukrainians become disappeared in the hunt for a Russian spy? You have the spirit of a true Stalinist if so, I guess. Our much-vaunted Enlightenment ideals have led us in a different direction, distinct from any racial politics.
https://www.cato.org/policing-in-america/chapter-4/blackstones-ratio


The American system, grounded in the British Common Law, has long erred on the side of protecting innocence. Thus we presume an accused person's innocence until they are proven guilty. As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote,"etter that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."74 This principle can also be found in religious texts and in the writings of the American Founders.75 Benjamin Franklin went further arguing "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."76
[...]
The survey posed dilemma to the American people, asking respondents which of the following scenarios they believe would be worse:

Having 20,000 people in prison who are actually innocent; or,
Having 20,000 people not in prison who are actually guilty
The survey found that a majority (60%) of Americans say it would be worse to have 20,000 innocent people in prison, while 40% say it would be worse to have 20,000 people who are actually guilty but not in prison.

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23648

As noted before, nearly all of [B]these individuals were arrested for having fit the profile of a potential enemy, not for things they had actually done. Stalin proceeded from the belief that innocent people would inevitably be repressed in the process of destroying enemies and that it was better to arrest innocents than to let the guilty go free. As he stated during the Great Terror, “'every communist is a possible hidden enemy. And because it is not easy to recognize the enemy, the goal is achieved even if only 5 percent of those killed are truly enemies'” (p. 196).


That's doublethink at its best: you can't remind blacks about their skin color which you can very well do with whites.

The invocation of doublethink is poetic set against the Stalin excerpt.

Of course that's not remotely what I said. You can remind anyone of their skin color as such. What you may not do is pretend that being reminded of your skin color (and associated privilege relative to others) is a form of oppression against whites.


I see. My arguments are always either red herring or working too hard. Except that they aren't arguments but facts.

Your arguments are a paragon of objectivity and are never far-fetched. Rock on.

When you are so dismissive, while declining either to defend or substantiate your statements nor rebut my own, you only demonstrate your unseriousness and vindicate all my complaints about your posture.

Just below is an example of a red herring, pointing to the existence of cannibalism in some parts of the Pacific as though it could be a defense of persistent reference to Hawaiians as cannibals in spite of repeated notice that they were not.


Isn't the bold a?

A translation of this stement of yours:
Being on a moral high ground (as you think) gives you unmitigated temerity to be right even before the debate starts. Something like "Don't you dare to question the correctness of my opinion". :hail:

No, I have largely remained planted in the realm of fact while probing your insoluble personal sentiment. See above. My moral status does not enter into the conversation.

It's exasperating that I take the trouble to carefully and repeatedly explain to you the deficiencies in your stances and you think you can just "Nuh-UH" your way clear.


The importance and relevance are gauged agaisnt the result. The latter boils down to my realizing after tons of words even more that being emotionally invested you tend to see one side of the story only, get angry at people who try to dispute your attitude, and simplify the versatility of motifs by reducing them to racism. Is this what you have been trying to prove? Hardly.

To the contrary, you might be too emotionally invested in your innocence and unassailable rectitude. Even by now you've hardly deigned to engage with a thing I've said. I'd hoped at the least we'd found shared understanding of "Black Lives Matter," but even there you retracted. Yet you act as though you have standing to demand


This is not the first attempt to try to sound teacher-like to me. Do differently

Полное издевательство

You wouldn't tolerate this from either a student or a peer in your own life. Please have the courtesy of addressing the substance of what I post if you're going to comment on it. Paraphrasing it back to me in an ingenuous and accurate way would be a start.

Some things that racism is, for reference. Racism is the belief that one's prejudicial attitudes are based in observable fact, when they actually reflect taste-based aversion. Racism is reinforcing systematic benefit of the doubt for one race against another. Racism is condoning ethnic hierarchies. Racism is the anxiety that it is worse in principle to be associated with the word "racism" than to uphold racism.

[Montmorency]

Videos for thread.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPSwqp5fdIw

The Debate Over Cecil John Rhodes | The Misadventures of Romesh Ranganathan (https://www.facebook.com/bbctwo/videos/284837699616230/?v=284837699616230)



Of course you can. Generally speaking, it seems that most of the time when inter-ethnic relations are discussed in a US-aware context, meta perspectives are thrown out of the window.
In an absolute sense it's possible. One could encounter a group of nonwhites who are motivated by a sense of revenge; you're just walking down the street when you hear "You must die, damn cracker! White demon!" and get beaten to death in a hate crime. An Islamic terrorist organization could decide that a majority-white space is by proxy Christian or anti-Islamic and therefore target it. But these sorts of scenarios are marginal or have a very restricted application. If you'd like a more precise formulation, being non-white is overwhelmingly more likely to be a disadvantage than being white is. Whiteness, as a reminder, is the nail of the whole modern, global system of racial categorization. This is the case even in those societies where whiteness (as race, distinct from color) is not a concept with much internal application. Indeed, the term Person of Color is logically equivalent to "non-white." That's the context we're operating in.

[Gilrandir]

I am familiar with the concept of reality TV, which only speaks to my point. But I take your correction.

Blonde is the canonical apex of the white woman hierarchy, at least in the West.
Correct.


You may think whatever you like and consider the episode as staged. I don't. The show has a long history and repute, so I don't agree with your take on the issue. Again a matter of subjective attitude.



I disagree that Harlem is dangerous.


It is your right to disagree with stark figures which refute your claim.



I tried to get at why you would mention Harlem in the first place, and why you thought it should go without elaboration that Harlem is dangerous.


At first I went by a stereotype, you are right. But then I found official statistics and realized that at least this stereotype isn't totally incorrect - Harlem (as well as Manhattan, as it turned out) is dangerous.




Choosing to emphasize them suggests one thinks they are a relatively-important issue, which demands justification.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/26/americas-race-protests-take-sinister-new-turn-show-force-armed/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDzaXkhxtBE

I remember when people here were discussing Maidan and they dwelt a lot upon the makeshift weapons protesters used and nazi symbols some of them wore. Here is a whole bunch of uniformed people with automatic guns marching along the streets and wanting to create Texas only for blacks. Was anyone here indignant, outraged or appalled? I might be mistaken, but this rally never deserved an acrimonious word from forumers here. Instead I saw angry and critical comments as to a couple brandishing pistols on their front porch. How come? Not because violence, looting and threats on the part of protesters are to be hushed not to sound racist and not to besmear a noble cause?



you ultimately perform insistent concern over the possibility that a black person somewhere might get an undeserved break while giving not an ounce's worth of regard to the millions who suffer documented material and moral oppression.


I more than once expressed my condemnation of oppression but I equally believe that past sufferings don't give any people indulgence for any misconduct now.



Would you prefer X number of patriotic Ukrainians become disappeared in the hunt for a Russian spy? You have the spirit of a true Stalinist if so, I guess.


Let's imagine that it is not red herring. What do you mean by "become disappeared"? Killed in action, missing in action? What do you mean by "patriotic Ukrainians"? Secret service agents, policemen, military men or average people? Unless you clarify I can't answer your non-red herring.




When you are so dismissive, while declining either to defend or substantiate your statements nor rebut my own, you only demonstrate your unseriousness and vindicate all my complaints about your posture.


My rebuttals and substatiations are qualified as red herring or misinterpretations by you.



Just below is an example of a red herring, pointing to the existence of cannibalism in some parts of the Pacific as though it could be a defense of persistent reference to Hawaiians as cannibals in spite of repeated notice that they were not.


O-ho! Now that's a different story. In your post #178 in response to my words that

Were natives of the Pacific cannibals?
They were, but putting it this way is racist.

you said

They generally weren't

Now you speak of EXISTENCE OF CANNIBALISM. :dizzy2:

So much for me being dismissive and red-herringal and you being consistent and undoublethikable.




To the contrary, you might be too emotionally invested in your innocence and unassailable rectitude.


I follow your suit.



Even by now you've hardly deigned to engage with a thing I've said.


You again ascribe to me feelings that I don't have. I didn't deign or not deign. I just see no reason to repeat the same arguments to a person who doesn't consider them worthy or relevant and fails (as I believe) to refute them.



I'd hoped at the least we'd found shared understanding of "Black Lives Matter," but even there you retracted.


I didn't. I just made a reservation that all lives matter, which you didn't appreciate.



Racism is condoning ethnic hierarchies.

If race isn't implicated it can't be racism. Xenophobia, nazism, but not racism.

[Viking]

One could encounter a group of nonwhites who are motivated by a sense of revenge

Of course ethnic violence that targets innocents is going to have a "justification".

Meanwhile, in Sweden (from the Swedish state broadcaster; copying the output from Google Translate with a few fixes):


When 18-year-old "Liam" was on his way home from work, he was assaulted by two 16-year-old boys who abused and humiliated him.
- First I get beaten, then one of the guys chooses to urinate on me while he is filming this, he says.

The young men who abused and robbed "Liam" have been prosecuted and brought to justice. The verdict is expected soon. And for "Liam", the trial has been important:
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/liam-en-av-killarna-urinerade-pa-mig



Two 16-year-old boys robbed, abused and humiliated Liam, 18. Everything was shown in a video that was spread on social media. SVT Nyheter has met the parents of one of the suspects.

[...]

The parents came to Sweden six years ago. Both work part time, the father studies SFI and the mother studies to be a nurse. And the economy is good according to the parents. The son gets what he needs.

- My son gets branded mobile phones and branded clothes so that he does not have to look at other people's things. He has a monthly allowance and when he needs more money I or his mother send him money. Nothing is missing for him, says the father.

[...]

This young person says that he was called, among other things, a svenne (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/svenne#Swedish) :daisy: when he was attacked by your son, why do you think he is attacking a person with a Swedish background?

- Sweden has done so much good for us, never anything bad. My son should never have said such wrong things, we are so happy with this country. We are indebted to the people here and should not speak ill of them. No one should have to experience such words and actions, neither Swedes nor others.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/mamman-till-pojken-som-ranade-och-fornedrade-liam-skams

There are good reasons to believe that assaults with similar ethnic profiles, relative to the total number of assaults, are common. But ethnicity is often left out completely in reporting in mainstream sources, making verification hard.



There is one important aspect that you are not mentioning above, and that is the numbers. Typically, if there is an ethnic group that forms a majority, it's the group holds most of the power. In the US, people of African ancestry form a minority; so they are naturally vulnerable.

Other aspects include wealth and power at a national level. The last couple of centuries, countries dominated by Europeans have been among the wealthiest and most powerful. They have also simultaneously been big exporters of culture, which exposes the wealth and power of these countries to other countries, raising the prestige of the 'European' countries in the eyes of others.

The prestige of countries and their inhabitants is in constant flux. The perceived prestige of being of European ancestry cannot be expected to last; it is a ship that could right itself - or heel differently - as more non-European countries gain wealth and power.

Meanwhile, in terms of numbers, what is ahead?



Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.

And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

[...]

The population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to treble in size to more than three billion people by 2100.

And the study says Nigeria will become the world's second biggest country, with a population of 791 million.

Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521)

For African-Americans, implicitly the subject of this thread, this might not matter much because of the Atlantic ocean.

For ethnic Europeans living in Europe, it could mean everything - because numbers matter, and a future of rainbows and harmony cannot be taken for granted.

[edyzmedieval]

If you're white, you will never suffer for being white.

Yes you can, you definitely can. Especially if you're Eastern European.

You can be whiter than milk in terms of skin colour and you will still suffer racist abuse regardless.

[CrossLOPER]

This is why I scoff at people who assume everyone always marks a sharp divide between fiction and realty. Representation matters, and scenes like this one and the clip from National Lampoon's Vacation I embedded earlier are enduringly absorbed as reality by many viewers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwBoa-NbNL8
My family actually had something like this happen when we first moved to the US. My dad turned into a crappy part of town at night back in the 90s, and we frequently had homeless people coming up to our car to ask for money for directions. I don't have any clear memories of this, but I was really young. The city has improved dramatically, and homeless people are a lot less daring, but homelessness itself seems to have not improved. I think the fact that there are a lot of organizations are helping those in need with food, clothing and shelter to the best of their ability is part of the reason why this is so.

This doesn't excuse anything, and you definitely should not use a comedy as an accurate reflection of real life.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes you can, you definitely can. Especially if you're Eastern European.

You can be whiter than milk in terms of skin colour and you will still suffer racist abuse regardless.

Monty's statement has all too much truth in the USA, and in much of the old "first world" (NOTE: author recognizes the term to be completely un-PC) -- but it does not obtain everywhere. Nor are white folk like me the only racists (systemically or openly).

[Montmorency]

Yes you can, you definitely can. Especially if you're Eastern European.

You can be whiter than milk in terms of skin colour and you will still suffer racist abuse regardless.

You should explain. You make it sound personal.



You may think whatever you like and consider the episode as staged. I don't. The show has a long history and repute, so I don't agree with your take on the issue. Again a matter of subjective attitude.

I carefully explained the nature of the scene.


It is your right to disagree with stark figures which refute your claim.

At first I went by a stereotype, you are right. But then I found official statistics and realized that at least this stereotype isn't totally incorrect - Harlem (as well as Manhattan, as it turned out) is dangerous.

You offered no reason to accept your opinion, which never amounted to more than identifying danger with the existence of crime in a place. You can think Manhattan is dangerous - you just don't offer any independent basis for doing so.


I remember when people here were discussing Maidan and they dwelt a lot upon the makeshift weapons protesters used and nazi symbols some of them wore. Here is a whole bunch of uniformed people with automatic guns marching along the streets and wanting to create Texas only for blacks. Was anyone here indignant, outraged or appalled? I might be mistaken, but this rally never deserved an acrimonious word from forumers here. Instead I saw angry and critical comments as to a couple brandishing pistols on their front porch. How come? Not because violence, looting and threats on the part of protesters are to be hushed not to sound racist and not to besmear a noble cause?

What is your point, that black men with guns are to be condemned alongside Nazis? A brave stand. I don't agree with NFAC's philosophy - they oppose Black Lives Matter and endorse separatism - but they haven't done anything harmful that I am aware of. Unlike the police. And they have no authority over anyone. Unlike the police. And they're not allied or coordinated with the police - unlike many white Patriot militias.


I more than once expressed my condemnation of oppression but I equally believe that past sufferings don't give any people indulgence for any misconduct now.

Much less then, does past hegemony license continued misconduct - right? There's only one dispositive part of the equation here, yet you don't show much concern.

You've spent maybe 0.1% of your space in this thread doing anything that resembles condemnation of oppression. I saw excuses of violence, looting, and threats by any number of white people or governments, but as soon as someone breaks a window in protest of this it's game over. What kind of values would support that disparate consideration?


Let's imagine that it is not red herring. What do you mean by "become disappeared"? Killed in action, missing in action? What do you mean by "patriotic Ukrainians"? Secret service agents, policemen, military men or average people? Unless you clarify I can't answer your non-red herring.

Invent any scenario you like. You can read for comprehension just below what you quoted.


O-ho! Now that's a different story. In your post #178 in response to my words that

Were natives of the Pacific cannibals?
They were, but putting it this way is racist.

you said

They generally weren't

Now you speak of EXISTENCE OF CANNIBALISM. :dizzy2:

So much for me being dismissive and red-herringal and you being consistent and undoublethikable.

Why do you act as though all peoples of the Pacific Islands shared the same culture, or had the same essential characteristics (there's a word for this)? They didn't. Some Europeans speak Ukrainian - most don't. The Irish, for example, tend not to. Hawaiians were not cannibals at the time of contact. How many times is it that I've said so?


You again ascribe to me feelings that I don't have. I didn't deign or not deign. I just see no reason to repeat the same arguments to a person who doesn't consider them worthy or relevant and fails (as I believe) to refute them.

You're right. I regret assigning beliefs or motivations to you, because in truth they don't matter. The bottom line here is that you've produced a long list of falsehoods, distortions, and distractions in demeaning the interests of non-whites, which I reprove.


If race isn't implicated it can't be racism. Xenophobia, nazism, but not racism.

All we've talked about here is race.




The prestige of countries and their inhabitants is in constant flux. The perceived prestige of being of European ancestry cannot be expected to last; it is a ship that could right itself - or heel differently - as more non-European countries gain wealth and power.

Meanwhile, in terms of numbers, what is ahead?

It is an important point that power and hierarchy are contingent. If it were not so, opposing white racism would be like whipping the sea in its futile extravagance. But the current material and social arrangements remain in place, and continue to perpetuate themselves. Anxiety or alarmism over a global 'overcorrection' is more than a little premature. It is an interesting theoretical question, first of all how to dissolve or deconstruct whiteness, and in parallel how to promote more egalitarian national or international orders so that there isn't a different, more complex or more fluid, racial hierarchy in the place of the old one. No idea how to make that into a checklist or flow chart. Regardless, the balance of the problem remains squarely where it has always been. The miniscule threat of suffering non-white hooliganism in Sweden can't compare to the disadvantages baked in for those non-whites. It is what it is right now and one can't turn away from that truth.


As many as (https://tobiashubinette.wordpress.com/2019/07/15/icke-vita-arbete-sverige-ojamlikhet/) 47.9% of all registered and registered unemployed in the country are today born outside Europe, the Swedish Public Employment Service announces today and together with the so-called "second generations" with a non-European background, residents with some form of non-European background now make up the majority and lion share of all unemployed ( NOTE: 100,000s of foreign Europeans who live and work in the million program areas are also de facto unemployed without being actively seeking work and registered and registered as unemployed).

Of all foreign-born unemployed, as many as 82.1% were born outside Europe and while the majority of Swedes' unemployment is down to around 2-2.5% (NOTE: lower than that, it is not possible to push down the unemployment of a certain so-called people in a so-called developed and modern country as there are always some who have "gone into the wall", who are so-called "knocked out" and "get sick" and who have a functional variation and have difficulty getting a job, etc.) while unemployment among foreign-born is 18.8% and among the residents with a background in Africa and Asia, this is an unemployment rate of 25-30%.

No other developed country, western country or European country on earth shows such astronomical and surrealistic differences (as those reported above) between the majority population and the minority population in terms of unemployment (and thus also in terms of huge differences in material standards, physical and mental and / health, personal financial status, life expectancy, room for maneuver, living space, purchasing power, consumption patterns, lifestyle, etc.) and all this during a boom that still seems “peak:a ”- ie when the recession hits, it will unfortunately in all probability be" seven trips worse "for the country's inhabitants in the million program areas and for the country's inhabitants with some kind of non-European background which today amount to at least 20% of the Swedish total population and the shootings and explosions we see today can unfortunately in the worst case be multiplied by a recession.

In France, Britain and the USA, for example, the differences are of course also huge between, for example, the inhabitants with Arab and Berber and West African and Southeast Asian backgrounds and the majority French, between the inhabitants with Caribbean, West African and South Asian backgrounds and the majority Britons and between blacks and Latinos and white Americans. is at the same time far smaller than those that apply in Sweden:The "normal" in the US is, for example, that unemployment is always twice as high among black Americans as among white Americans, but in Sweden we are talking about an unemployment level among the country's inhabitants with some form of non-European background that is so improbably high compared to unemployment among majority Swedes that it is hardly possible to calculate it in percent and even if the percentage is calculated, it becomes so incomprehensible that it is hardly an idea to do so (ie it is for some groups of non-Europeans about 1000 percent difference compared to the majority residents in).

Didn't look at this one but seems relevant: RANDOMLY SELECTED: RACIAL/ETHNIC PROFILING IN SWEDEN (https://crd.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CRD-Randomly-selected.pdf)

It's fascinating that even Sweden - "even," mark that assumption - maintained a tropical slave colony (https://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:967510/FULLTEXT01.pdf) for a time.

At least Sweden isn't (to my knowledge) Denmark (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-denmark-immigration/denmark-to-school-ghetto-kids-in-democracy-and-christmas-idUSKCN1IT1EO), where even the left embraces a national chauvinism somewhere between Orban's Hungary and pre-war America.


For ethnic Europeans living in Europe, it could mean everything - because numbers matter, and a future of rainbows and harmony cannot be taken for granted.

The future outlook remains a lot worse for black Africans anywhere than it does for whites anywhere. If we can imagine a scenario involving hundreds of millions of dead or displaced Africans in a short period of time - and this is not unlikely in our lifetimes - then we should take a step back and look at the big picture before bemoaning the potential second-order effects of this worst-in-history devastation on Europe.

[Gilrandir]

I carefully explained the nature of the scene.



You didn't explain. You related the gist of the story and said that blondes didn't deserve any credit just because they are blondes. Thus you insulted all women of that hair color (my wife and daughter including) and set at naught the credit story of a reputable travel show. So much for your non-biased take on things.




You offered no reason to accept your opinion, which never amounted to more than identifying danger with the existence of crime in a place. You can think Manhattan is dangerous - you just don't offer any independent basis for doing so.


This is why I "deign to avoid" answering you. My reason and basis was the map by New York authorities, which you interpret in your peculiar way different from the color scheme solution it offers. But you keep sayng that I gave neither reason nor basis. :shrug:



What is your point, that black men with guns are to be condemned alongside Nazis? A brave stand. I don't agree with NFAC's philosophy - they oppose Black Lives Matter and endorse separatism - but they haven't done anything harmful that I am aware of. Unlike the police. And they have no authority over anyone. Unlike the police. And they're not allied or coordinated with the police - unlike many white Patriot militias.


:laugh4: Whenever some unsavory fact that ruins your unimpeachable stance surfaces you react with "what's your point" and "how is that relevant".

You still seem to fail to understand that ANY men with guns are to be condemned in this situation. Especially paramilitary troops with automatic weaponry marching along peaceful neighborhoods and calling for the secession of a territory to create a monoracial country.

It is true, they haven't done anything, but the white pistol-brandishing couple did neither. Yet whole philippics were aimed at them (perhaps they deserve it, to some extent) yet NO ONE - let me stress - NO ONE batted an eyelid at NFAC marches. I expect that 400 years of slavery behind them excuse whatever they did, do and will yet do. You seem to believe that wrongs done against the black people in 400 years can be redressed by wrongs done by black people now.

I wonder what would be your reaction if a unit of white uniformed men with machine guns marched along neighborhoods and demanded secession of, say, Alaska and creating a state only for whites there?





You've spent maybe 0.1% of your space in this thread doing anything that resembles condemnation of oppression.


I would be glad if you mathematically proved the percentage. As you tried to do (but failed) with the Harlem/Manhattan crime rates. My condemnation was expressed more that once and it goes by default. I see no reason to start and finish every post with it otherwise it would be like repeating that the Earth rotates around the sun in every other sentence.



I saw excuses of violence, looting, and threats by any number of white people or governments, but as soon as someone breaks a window in protest of this it's game over. What kind of values would support that disparate consideration?


If I see something that isn't there, is it the fault of this something or me?



The Irish, for example, tend not to.


The Irish tend to not speak their own tongue either.



Hawaiians were not cannibals at the time of contact. How many times is it that I've said so?



The opinion of a random forum guy against the opinions of numerous internet sites that I quoted... Hmm... A tough choice who to trust.



The bottom line here is that you've produced a long list of falsehoods, distortions, and distractions in demeaning the interests of non-whites, which I reprove.


The same I may say about you and add also some slantings, biased attitudes and race-based indulgence - the things that you so vehemently seem to detest.

I hope that was really a bottomline.

[Montmorency]

You didn't explain. You related the gist of the story and said that blondes didn't deserve any credit just because they are blondes.

Nearly every detail of the scene, as I laid out, speaks against its spontaneity. Rather than repeating each of these and laying out their implausibility individually or in combination, it should be enough to refer to the behavior of the thief with respect to the cameraman. Maybe I could believe the cameraman has a truly prodigious commitment to capturing the scene, and would even allow the actress to be gutted before his eyes in his pursuit of Art. But a petty mugger wouldn't be beholden to such conventions. In this video we see the mugger, who has seemingly been observing the woman, almost completely ignore the male cameraman at all stages. In a real attack, the criminal would always prioritize a woman's male companion as the target, because attacking the woman right in front of her companion would be a great way to get flanked and neutralized. An assailant would try to neutralize the man first. Not only did the assailant not do this before attacking, he barely acknowledged the cameraman when he was running up right in his face or when he put his hand up in front of him - because he did not see the camerman as a threat.

So what we have here - if this were a real incident - is a thief maximizing the risk to himself in attacking this woman, and the cameraman maximizing the danger to himself and his companion. In reality what happens during a mugging is the thief gets behind the cameraman, bashes him on the head, grabs his phone or camera (worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, as compared to the $2 the thief took from the woman), and flees.

Since you persist in ignoring things I repeatedly explain, I'll repeat that blondeness has an elevated aesthetic significance to Europeans, and blonde white (woman) vs. swarthy villain is a very old meme. I simply noted the instantiation here.

This is also not a real event, but it's arguably more realistic than the travel show scene.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWl8EbNN8NM


set at naught the credit story of a reputable travel show.

You believe everything that happens on travel shows is spontaneous and unscripted? It's a dramatization, distasteful for its content and not for being a dramatization.


So much for your non-biased take on things.

There is of course no argument that pointing out a staged scene in a travel show is an indicator of bias.


This is why I "deign to avoid" answering you. My reason and basis was the map by New York authorities, which you interpret in your peculiar way different from the color scheme solution it offers. But you keep sayng that I gave neither reason nor basis. :shrug:

You did not explain how the map supported your judgement. It does not and cannot do so without commentary.

Saying 'look - map - danger' as though that means something is so :daisy: stupid that it legitimately makes me angry that I'm having to point this out 5 times.


:laugh4: Whenever some unsavory fact that ruins your unimpeachable stance surfaces you react with "what's your point" and "how is that relevant".

Maybe because you would have to answer those questions for it to affect anything? You're basically complaining that you have to justify anything you say.


You still seem to fail to understand that ANY men with guns are to be condemned in this situation. Especially paramilitary troops with automatic weaponry marching along peaceful neighborhoods and calling for the secession of a territory to create a monoracial country.

OK, that's great. Write an essay condemning the white militias and the police and I'll take you seriously. You're in a position like affirming your opposition to German operations against Poland, but insisting that we really have to address that Polish aggression against Germany. All countries matter!


It is true, they haven't done anything, but the white pistol-brandishing couple did neither.

Pointing your gun at someone is clearly different than pointing your gun at no one.


Yet whole philippics were aimed at them (perhaps they deserve it, to some extent) yet NO ONE - let me stress - NO ONE batted an eyelid at NFAC marches. I expect that 400 years of slavery behind them excuse whatever they did, do and will yet do.


Once again, why do you prioritize expressing your distaste at black people of all sorts yet handwave actual violence and oppression? If you spend all your time talking about one thing, but actively dismissing another, it is easy to get the impression you care about one but not the other. Though you moaned about it in the past, at least Ukrainian Nazis actually have an impact to be criticized for.


I wonder what would be your reaction if a unit of white uniformed men with machine guns marched along neighborhoods and demanded secession of, say, Alaska and creating a state only for whites there?

You would be skirting around a description of our far-right militias, who are an actual threat to the country with their political cover and relatively widespread support, unlike NFAC. To repeat myself.

Does it matter to you whether something is a threat or not, or only that they're black?


I would be glad if you mathematically proved the percentage. As you tried to do (but failed) with the Harlem/Manhattan crime rates. My condemnation was expressed more that once and it goes by default. I see no reason to start and finish every post with it otherwise it would be like repeating that the Earth rotates around the sun in every other sentence.

So if you have nothing to say, why are you here? You do have something to say, it's just that it's all centered around panic and distaste over black people.

[Strike For The South]

The Denmark stuff is wild. Imagine being forced to celebrate Christmas, learn Danish, and then have every single Dane tell you, you'll never be Danish. Like it is impossible for you to be Dane! I remember seeing that article in NYT. What is the end game there!?! I suppose Westphalia has outlived its usefulness and we should bring on the Global order?

Re: The Slavs and discrimination. Maybe it's true in Europe. I know the speaking Polish in England has been a hot button issue? I have met plenty and educated, progressive European opine about Americas social miasmas and in the next breath denounce Romani in the most stark racial terms.

[Gilrandir]

You believe everything that happens on travel shows is spontaneous and unscripted? It's a dramatization, distasteful for its content and not for being a dramatization.


And the blonde's distress and shock is a make-believe? Rock on.




You did not explain how the map supported your judgement. It does not and cannot do so without commentary.


I explained it in every post where it was mentioned. For the last time: the intensity of color shows the relative number of crimes. Since the intesity is the same for Harlem and Manhattan the number of crimes (especially felonies) is comparable. Hence, they are both dangerous.




OK, that's great. Write an essay condemning the white militias and the police and I'll take you seriously. You're in a position like affirming your opposition to German operations against Poland, but insisting that we really have to address that Polish aggression against Germany. All countries matter!



Pointing your gun at someone is clearly different than pointing your gun at no one.



Once again, why do you prioritize expressing your distaste at black people of all sorts yet handwave actual violence and oppression? If you spend all your time talking about one thing, but actively dismissing another, it is easy to get the impression you care about one but not the other. Though you moaned about it in the past, at least Ukrainian Nazis actually have an impact to be criticized for.



You would be skirting around a description of our far-right militias, who are an actual threat to the country with their political cover and relatively widespread support, unlike NFAC. To repeat myself.

Does it matter to you whether something is a threat or not, or only that they're black?



So if you have nothing to say, why are you here? You do have something to say, it's just that it's all centered around panic and distaste over black people.

* sigh*

I'm tired of repeating my stance that all people should be held responsible for their misdemeanors irrespective of the race. My distaste goes to all militias (both black or white), all rioters and looters (black or white), all policemen (black or white) who break laws, are being brutal or threaten other people (black or white). For you blacks seem to always have an excuse of past grievances. And when I point such cases to you (like with the NFAC) you go "but whites..." This is no way to hold a debate. Can you deal with the NFAC march and agenda with no reference to whites, 400 years of slavery, Ukrainian nazis, far-right militias and other distractions? Are they dangerous? Are they separatists? Are they racists? Do you condemn/support/tolerate them?

To forestall your "but whites": I condemn all similar actions by non-blacks.

[Viking]

But the current material and social arrangements remain in place, and continue to perpetuate themselves. Anxiety or alarmism over a global 'overcorrection' is more than a little premature.

The term correction makes me think about politics, whereas the analogue of a ship and its list is more concerned about the dynamic nature of the world. In the sense that one might view the end of the Roman Republic and the collapse of the Roman Empire as a consequence of the fact that things tend to drift (cf. the second law of thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)) rather than two sets of specific events that may have made those outcomes inevitable.


When it comes to politics, overcorrection is always a potential issue. More immediately, though, I would look at the severe lack of vision of a future that is sustainable when it comes to inter-ethnic relations (i.e. a new permanent norm).

The current debate on the subject focuses on current grievances and immediate policies to correct those. Without plans for the future, one cannot really see what kind of societies the particpants of the debate want to create, and what trade-offs they find acceptable. Nor what presumptions they make (that a particular political ideology or religion will prevail, the future of specific ongoing trends, and so on).

To be concrete, imagine that in the year 2200, the 15 wealthiest people in the US are Uyghurs - either because of random fluctuations or because the culture of the Uyghurs makes them particularly hardworking and innovative - what will be done in such a scenario? Nothing? Generic ethnicity-specific income caps that makes it impossible in the first place?

The purpose of this example is not to seek answers to the question in this thread, but to give an example of the more general perspectives that contemporary debate does not shed a lot of light on.

Then there is the specialized language that is being used. If talk of 'white privilege' was complemented or replaced with talk of status-elevating phenotypes (or something even more general), and what difference being a majority - in the general population and in the state apparatus - makes, and you have a language that is ready to explain a greater amount of societies as well reminding people of the fact that the status quo should not be taken for granted. The refusal by a person to use more generalized language when challenged could also immediately tell you more about what kind of person it is whose opinions you have been exposed to (sometimes its the small details that expose a kook).


The miniscule threat of suffering non-white hooliganism in Sweden can't compare to the disadvantages baked in for those non-whites. It is what it is right now and one can't turn away from that truth.

The point of that story is this: what happens with inter-ethnic relations if 60% of the population in Sweden is of non-Western ethnicity, and 40% is of ethnic Swedish/European ancestry? One obvious prospect is that such attacks become much more common. In the short to medium term, that could lead to a massive increase in ethnic segregation and perhaps gated communities, but in a democratic country, the majority is capable to take the reigns as long as it is adequately united. And then what? But would democracy in Sweden even last that long in such a scenario, where the general level of trust in society could take a nose dive?

Last, I note that you use the word 'hooliganism' here, whereas you elsewhere seem comfortable with using the term 'racism'; a potential nomenclatural deviation, in other words.


The "normal" in the US is, for example, that unemployment is always twice as high among black Americans as among white Americans, but in Sweden we are talking about an unemployment level among the country's inhabitants with some form of non-European background that is so improbably high compared to unemployment among majority Swedes that it is hardly possible to calculate it in percent and even if the percentage is calculated, it becomes so incomprehensible that it is hardly an idea to do so (ie it is for some groups of non-Europeans about 1000 percent difference compared to the majority residents in).

The great irony here is that the vast majority of those people are not in Sweden because they, or their ancestors, had something to offer Sweden - they are there because Sweden had something to offer them, namely refuge. Now some of them ungratefully, or perhaps more often: many of their ungrateful descendants, run amok in Sweden. One potential lesson to take away from this is the dangers of massive immigration based on asylum claims or other highly asymmetric transactions.


At least Sweden isn't (to my knowledge) Denmark (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-denmark-immigration/denmark-to-school-ghetto-kids-in-democracy-and-christmas-idUSKCN1IT1EO), where even the left embraces a national chauvinism somewhere between Orban's Hungary and pre-war America.

Integration has massive issues in Europe. The main concern is not finding methods that one likes, but methods that actually work. No such universal method appears to have been found yet (my prediction is of course, save for draconian ones, such methods do not exist). You might find examples of particular individuals or particular ethnic groups in particular countries that have fared well, but that doesn't solve the issues.

In more general terms, how complete can integration of an ethnic group into a society be without assimilation? What does integration even mean in this context?

Having a job is a plus in terms of integration, but if all your work colleagues discuss a topic during lunch today that is irrelevant for you due to your cultural or religious beliefs, what is that in terms of integration? And what should be done about it - weaken a source of a sense of community for the many to reduce a sense of not belonging for the few?


The future outlook remains a lot worse for black Africans anywhere than it does for whites anywhere. If we can imagine a scenario involving hundreds of millions of dead or displaced Africans in a short period of time - and this is not unlikely in our lifetimes - then we should take a step back and look at the big picture before bemoaning the potential second-order effects of this worst-in-history devastation on Europe.

If Europe turns into a mix of failed states and authoritarian states, that is not going to help sub-Saharans much, either.

[Montmorency]

The next public execution. Seems like protest bait.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/23/wisconsin-police-shooting-kenosha-cops-shoot-man-sunday-evening/3427347001/



Re: The Slavs and discrimination. Maybe it's true in Europe. I know the speaking Polish in England has been a hot button issue? I have met plenty and educated, progressive European opine about Americas social miasmas and in the next breath denounce Romani in the most stark racial terms.

Crucially, Poles who are discriminated against in the UK are not being discriminated against for their whiteness.



<snip>

Gil, we have some disagreements on matters of fact and of value. You don't acknowledge the - often indisputable - truth value of the former nor identify and defend your priors on the latter. The factual disagreements ultimately center on the values here, particularly your evident feeling that black people's problems get too much attention and not enough suspicion; if you adopt a totally negationist posture it's impossible to communicate because the most basic point becomes insoluble. I hesitate to even respond to the above as it is fruitless, but I will conclude for the record if you wish to see it.


And the blonde's distress and shock is a make-believe? Rock on.

You posted an episode of a reality TV show as a genuine article of crime in Africa in order to support a contention that Africa is dangerous, after asserting that Harlem is dangerous, in response to discussion of a children's poem about how dangerous Africa is, which poem was mentioned as an example of insidious racial attitudes. It is a problem for you to get exercised about the overtly play-acted distress of someone who looks like your wife and daughter but handwave the real and immemorial suffering of millions who don't.


I explained it in every post where it was mentioned. For the last time: the intensity of color shows the relative number of crimes. Since the intesity is the same for Harlem and Manhattan the number of crimes (especially felonies) is comparable. Hence, they are both dangerous.

As I have said, that is not a usage of the concept of "danger" that could be widely acceptable due to its arbitrariness and disconnection from practical experience, and I don't believe you would apply it consistently either. I could color a map of Ukraine red, or a map of the whole world red; that wouldn't provide a useful basis for interpretation. It is based on ignorance and indifference - if offered in seriousness. That you never defended or explicated it as a useful basis for anything suggests it was not offered seriously but capriciously and post hoc to the pre-established judgement of Harlem. In the end, there was simply no reason to invoke Harlem as a dangerous place - intuitively dangerous, no less - in the context of Africa, in this thread, other than that both Harlem and Africa are archetypically-scary majority black places.


To forestall your "but whites": I condemn all similar actions by non-blacks.

If you did condemn in the same measure, that would be objectionable enough when there is not substance to condemn in the same measure; imagine how depraved or lunatic it would be to respond to international censure of Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait by interjecting that we must also deplore Kuwaiti aggression against Iraq. And that would still be an overly-mild analogy, because at least Kuwait was a sovereign state with a military and financial leverage over Iraq! But you do not condemn in the same measure, you are overwhelmingly hostile to black people. You inflate trivialities to the level of urgent subjects, but denigrate the discussion of the biggest issues in material and human impact. There is something wrong with inflating trivialities to the level of urgent subjects while denigrating the discussion of the biggest issues in material and human impact.


I'm tired of repeating my stance that all people should be held responsible for their misdemeanors irrespective of the race. My distaste goes to all militias (both black or white), all rioters and looters (black or white), all policemen (black or white) who break laws, are being brutal or threaten other people (black or white). For you blacks seem to always have an excuse of past grievances. And when I point such cases to you (like with the NFAC) you go "but whites..." This is no way to hold a debate. Can you deal with the NFAC march and agenda with no reference to whites, 400 years of slavery, Ukrainian nazis, far-right militias and other distractions? Are they dangerous? Are they separatists? Are they racists? Do you condemn/support/tolerate them?

As we see here. As I said, I do not agree with the NFAC ideology, but I recognize that they are no threat to our country, society, and system of government, unlike the White militias. This is a contrast between a group aspiring to self-defense, and a group aspiring to domination. The decision - not in isolation! - to dig up Scary Black Men with Guns to hyperventilate about (while not bothering to even acknowledge the long-standing white militia who were present as counterprotesters to NFAC!!) is transparent in the context of this thread of all places.




The term correction makes me think about politics, whereas the analogue of a ship and its list is more concerned about the dynamic nature of the world. In the sense that one might view the end of the Roman Republic and the collapse of the Roman Empire as a consequence of the fact that things tend to drift (cf. the second law of thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)) rather than two sets of specific events that may have made those outcomes inevitable.


When it comes to politics, overcorrection is always a potential issue. More immediately, though, I would look at the severe lack of vision of a future that is sustainable when it comes to inter-ethnic relations (i.e. a new permanent norm).

The current debate on the subject focuses on current grievances and immediate policies to correct those. Without plans for the future, one cannot really see what kind of societies the particpants of the debate want to create, and what trade-offs they find acceptable. Nor what presumptions they make (that a particular political ideology or religion will prevail, the future of specific ongoing trends, and so on).

To be concrete, imagine that in the year 2200, the 15 wealthiest people in the US are Uyghurs - either because of random fluctuations or because the culture of the Uyghurs makes them particularly hardworking and innovative - what will be done in such a scenario? Nothing? Generic ethnicity-specific income caps that makes it impossible in the first place?

The purpose of this example is not to seek answers to the question in this thread, but to give an example of the more general perspectives that contemporary debate does not shed a lot of light on.

This is all well and good, and worth thinking about, but it inherently can't remonstrate against ongoing issues or short-to-medium term solutions/policies with any specificity. I too have wondered about a longer-term and more global-general vision for securing interethnic comity, justice, and interdependence, but I am not well-read enough on the issues; I would expect these questions have received attention yet have remained largely abstract academic discussions that have not yet filtered down into public consciousness. As with questions of capitalist dominance and climate sustainability I am constitutionally pessimistic about the eschaton.


Then there is the specialized language that is being used. If talk of 'white privilege' was complemented or replaced with talk of status-elevating phenotypes (or something even more general), and what difference being a majority - in the general population and in the state apparatus - makes, and you have a language that is ready to explain a greater amount of societies as well reminding people of the fact that the status quo should not be taken for granted. The refusal by a person to use more generalized language when challenged could also immediately tell you more about what kind of person it is whose opinions you have been exposed to (sometimes its the small details that expose a kook).

White privilege is a concept that applies to whiteness and its interactions. The more general concept is privilege, and in an intersectional framework can be identified (e.g. global light-skin privilege, Han Chinese privilege, citizenship privilege, etc.) in any appropriate context. If you don't like the term "privilege" you can substitute some alternative for clarification, such as 'relational or structural advantage of demographic feature' - but then it becomes evident how hard it is to devise terminology that is accurate, precise, and extensible, but not clunky or confusing or even emotionally burdensome.


The point of that story is this: what happens with inter-ethnic relations if 60% of the population in Sweden is of non-Western ethnicity, and 40% is of ethnic Swedish/European ancestry? One obvious prospect is that such attacks become much more common. In the short to medium term, that could lead to a massive increase in ethnic segregation and perhaps gated communities, but in a democratic country, the majority is capable to take the reigns as long as it is adequately united. And then what? But would democracy in Sweden even last that long in such a scenario, where the general level of trust in society could take a nose dive?

A mutually-beneficial arrangement is one where structural inequities facing various immigrant groups are dissolved and individual attitudes of mutual respect between all ethnic demographics are promoted. Yes, a prerequisite of this would be considerable fiscal investment by the Swedish state (in this case) in immigrant populations. Established populations will almost inherently have an advantage over newcomers in both accumulated wealth and in opportunities to accumulate wealth, even without barriers of law or discrimination. For that reason it is unsurprising that immigrants who arrive with prior wealth or professional/academic bona fides tend to do well as cohorts. But this isn't characteristic of most immigrants where they aren't subject to strict qualifications for entry, and that kind of regime is bad for its exclusivity and for commoditizing immigrants. Maybe the reduced economic prospects of Anglosphere white youth worldwide are a factor in their relative comfort with the presence of non-white ethnics?

(As an intriguing aside, from purely anecdotal Internet evidence, African Americans who have traveled to Europe tend to report strong positive experiences about the apparent lack of racism in their relations with ethnic Germans as compared to white Americans or other Europeans. I don't know how this scales in representativeness, or what Afro-Germans might think about it, but it's something I noticed.)


Last, I note that you use the word 'hooliganism' here, whereas you elsewhere seem comfortable with using the term 'racism'; a potential nomenclatural deviation, in other words.

If the negative effects of immigrant hooliganism for ethnic Swedes are as yet minimal, the effects of immigrant racism (as superordinate to targeted crime) against them must be even less. I chose my words to be more accommodating!


The great irony here is that the vast majority of those people are not in Sweden because they, or their ancestors, had something to offer Sweden - they are there because Sweden had something to offer them, namely refuge. Now some of them ungratefully, or perhaps more often: many of their ungrateful descendants, run amok in Sweden. One potential lesson to take away from this is the dangers of massive immigration based on asylum claims or other highly asymmetric transactions.

I certainly hope no country would establish an immigration regime on the basis of some gratefulness quotient. If you want human capital you have to provide for it. That's the hard thing; it's easy to perpetuate a mudsill. Adopting refugees is to an extent an obligation of wealth, not for Instagrammable bragging rights.


Integration has massive issues in Europe. The main concern is not finding methods that one likes, but methods that actually work. No such universal method appears to have been found yet (my prediction is of course, save for draconian ones, such methods do not exist). You might find examples of particular individuals or particular ethnic groups in particular countries that have fared well, but that doesn't solve the issues.

In more general terms, how complete can integration of an ethnic group into a society be without assimilation? What does integration even mean in this context?

There can't be integration, in the sense of a stable egalitarian flow of people through institutions, without actually undertaking the effort to resolve inequalities. White national groups are disintegrating too!

Assimilation in the sense of mutual cultural influence happens by default to some extent, at least in the American experience. It's probably identifiable in any country, but the tendency is overwhelmingly for assimilation to be uni-directional and defensive. To semi-ironically appropriate Nazi terminology, the Anglo and European cultures of the United States are uniquely Africanized. But assimilation is totally distinct from integration.

Structural reform to reduce inequality, short of big-ticket items like wealth redistribution or reparations, is always going to be easier than solving the problem of affective or personal bias. The modern racial framework provides too many hooks for persistent racism, which even in the US has been grindingly slow to recede. To the extent it does recede I'm not sure how this kind of cultural change is generated other than very long common exposure coupled with at least some legal framework discouraging racism. The state matters somewhat, but it only really lays groundwork for real change to my mind; public opposition can and will sink a policy that purports to be decisive (e.g. school integration; schools in America are more segregated than ever!) Interracial marriage has pretty much always been accepted by most African Americans, but Americans overall only polled at majority approval (tolerance?) of interracial marriage from the Clinton administration! A Supreme Court case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) didn't create that - but it was probably necessary.


Having a job is a plus in terms of integration, but if all your work colleagues discuss a topic during lunch today that is irrelevant for you due to your cultural or religious beliefs, what is that in terms of integration? And what should be done about it - weaken a source of a sense of community for the many to reduce a sense of not belonging for the few?

While power balance is always a sticky consideration, and there is some value in preserving the human diversity of smaller groups, I don't in abstract recognize a right of conservatives in an ethnic group to never have to witness change under any circumstances.

I don't believe all your questions can ever be resolved on a so-called "national" basis, country by country, just as it's obvious that the great historic struggles over economic organization and sociopolitical power can no longer be contended with in a totally meta-pluralistic dispensation, which has been the implicit arrangement forever - there has to be a transition toward recognizing a transnational polity, both because a country is a jurisdiction but not much more, because corporate jurisdictions are not substantively different from those of organized crime syndicates, because all Earth-dwellers owe something to one another, and because we can realize a greater good by equalizing each other psychologically and materially (toward prosperity and flourishing).

The greatest obstacle, aside from hostile vested interests, oligarchs and plutocrats, is the existence of conservatives who really do hold fundamentally-different values as to the Good and the proper distribution of Things and People and the legitimate means and ends of power, and with whom a tense coexistence on the global stage is probably no longer sustainable in the 21st century.

This essay contains some promising concepts, but it's pretty much the only reflection on this topic that I've read.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Against-Fraternity-Democracy-Without-Solidarity-2015.pdf


If Europe turns into a mix of failed states and authoritarian states, that is not going to help sub-Saharans much, either.

This causal structure in a lot of contexts sounds like an argument for proactivity to me.

[Gilrandir]

your evident feeling that black people's problems get too much attention and not enough suspicion;


That is totally wrong. I maintain that black people's problems are often described with downplaying the negative effects which accompany (are caused by?) protests and racial issues.




imagine how depraved or lunatic it would be to respond to international censure of Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait by interjecting that we must also deplore Kuwaiti aggression against Iraq.


If the latter really happened we must. But since it didn't your comparison is lame.



As we see here. As I said, I do not agree with the NFAC ideology, but I recognize that they are no threat to our country, society, and system of government, unlike the White militias.


This is the difference between us. I recognize BOTH as threats. You tend to condone the NFAC just because they are black. Despite the fact that they shot three of their own number mishadling the guns. The latter of course represents no threat to peaceful population (both black and white) whatsoever.



This is a contrast between a group aspiring to self-defense, and a group aspiring to domination.


So NFAC who want to create Texas for blacks is self-defense, and white couple brandishing weapons on their front porch is domination? :wall:



The decision - not in isolation! - to dig up Scary Black Men with Guns to hyperventilate about (while not bothering to even acknowledge the long-standing white militia who were present as counterprotesters to NFAC!!) is transparent in the context of this thread of all places.

I condemn both. Unlike you. For me it doesn't matter whose bullet may find me. For you being shot by blacks seems somehow more appropriate.


Generally, Americans шарахаются из крайности в крайность. First you elect a quiet and inelligent black president and then you go for an arrogant primitive redneck with the grace and tact of an elephant in china shop. First you consider homosexualism a crime and then you proclaim it the thing to be proud of. First you keep black people in slavery, segregate them, KKK them, enforce Jim Crow laws with fire hoses and then you fall into another extremity and endorse paramilitary black units with automatic weaponry marching along peaceful neighborhoods. Now you are mortally afraid to say anything that might be considered as not fitting the current trend and consequently stigmatized as racist.

Learn to find a balanced attitude seeing all merits and demerits of facts and events.

[Montmorency]

Jacob Blake, the police shooting victim, has so far not died as expected, but is partially paralyzed.

As expected, there have been large protests over the incident. There has been right-wing militia involvement and protesters have been killed by them. The police seem to approve of the militias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/us/kenosha-shooting-protests-jacob-blake.html
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/26/us/ap-us-police-shooting-wisconsin.html

https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/1298548642916323330 [VIDEO]
https://twitter.com/shmeckeljuice/status/1298508055458582529 [VIDEO]

https://twitter.com/swampthingx/status/1298495139283980289
https://twitter.com/TalbertSwan/status/1298600904711647237
https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1298669264568586240 [VIDEO]


This is Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, an Illinois resident who was just charged with first-degree murder of two people last night in Kenosha, Wisconsin. This teen, whose social media history is full of misogyny and white supremacy, had easy access to an AR-15. In recent months, gun violence has broken out at protests against violence against Black Americans by police. In Albuquerque, a man was shot and wounded in June during a protest. In Portland, protests were escalated this weekend by white supremacists with rifles and handguns.


https://twitter.com/DrRJKavanagh/status/1298532736790077440 [VIDEO]


Cell phone video shows Kenosha Wisconsin police officers in an military vehicle telling armed White militia members they "appreciate them being there" and giving them bottled water; while in the background cops can be heard ordering protestors to disperse. Here, a militia member says cops told them they would "push" the protestors towards them because they knew they could handle them.


https://twitter.com/nick_w_estes/status/1298530899701587969


Jacob Blake got shot seven times in the back for breaking up a fight. A little racist white kid guns down three people, killing one [two now], with dozens of witnesses and walks through a police line unharmed, in the same goddamn city.

https://twitter.com/Rachel__Nichols/status/1298478959206662145

[Montmorency]

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/27/906901940/kenosha-shooting-suspect-charged-with-six-criminal-counts-including-homicide

Some graphic images of the Boy Who Lived third shooting victim, non-fatal. Mr. 'Good-guy-with-a-gun' tried to confront the young murderer Mr. Ritterkreuz Rittenhouse with his pistol but was shot for his trouble.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/26/videos-capture-wild-moments-that-led-to-deadly-shootings-in-kenosha/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CEWCtCGFgc_/

https://i.imgur.com/ZERyRk8.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/EGgqQHv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hz55JnC.jpg

[rory_20_uk]

Finally evidence that "the only thing that can stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun" since after all whoever is alive at the end will be of the view they were the good guy and were being threatened by a terrorist with a gun.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

Some graphic images of the Boy Who Lived third shooting victim, non-fatal. Mr. 'Good-guy-with-a-gun' tried to confront the young murderer Mr. Ritterkreuz Rittenhouse with his pistol but was shot for his trouble.


Events in Wisconsin only convince me that my cautious attitude to BLM protests was justified.

Police brutality was (and probably is) also an issue in Ukraine (http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1372969394). However, the reaction of people was different: they visited their indignance upon the cops themselves, not upon the innocent fellow villagers and their property.

During Maidan, protesters never smashed widows or burned cars. That is, if they attacked buildings those were administrative ones or offices of the ruling party. Otherwise, you could sit in a Kyiv cafe drinking coffee and watch protesters march along the street outside. They never tried to damage anything just for the sake of damage (or loot). Because they realiazed that all such businesses and shops were ultimately US. And THEM against who they were fighting were the authorities. That is why the owners of such businesses often donated money and food to them or invited them for a free meal.

What do we see in the USA? The police is being brutal to people. Do people surround police departments, smoke 'em out and hang the bastards on the lamp posts along the road? That is an exaggeration, of course, but even if that happened I would understand that (if not support).

No, protesters choose a different modus operandi - to target the innocent and their property. What is the fault of shop and car owners whose property has been burned or looted? To be located in a wrong place at a wrong time? Perhaps they are as indignant about the police brutality as the protesters. Some of them may be blacks, by the way. But protesters unleash their rage on those who have nothing to do with what they are fighting against thus turning them into adversaries.

That is why I would be on the side of the militias (no matter black, white or of any other race) who try to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arsons.

[ReluctantSamurai]

There are so many things wrong with all of that, but I'm going to just focus on one:


That is why I would be on the side of the militias (no matter black, white or of any other race) who try to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arsons.

First of all, vigilantism is against the law in the US. Why? People like Kyle Rittenhouse. Unless your definition of neighbor is vastly different in Ukraine, I'd hardly call driving 20 miles across statelines (and breaking the law by being under-aged for carrying an AR-15) to protect someone else's property as justified. This isn't 1776, and it's the very reason why the police force came into being, who, if they had been doing their jobs, would have quelled the looting and arson. Yes, people have a right to defend their property, but as we've seen, it can be taken to absurdity (as in St. Louis Ken and Karen). And of course you are making the same mostly asinine conclusion as our own president----that if the BLM is involved, it's gotta be the Antifa "terrorists" who are responsible, instead of mostly far right-wing supremacists looking for an excuse to brandish their toys and go out and shoot someone who doesn't have the same skin color as their own.

Are there people participating in the BLM movement that are bad, violent, aggressive people? Yes. Has anything real been done about why the BLM is protesting in the first place? No. Just another unjustified shooting of a black man, to add to a too long list of such shootings. I think you still haven't heard the message, yet...:inquisitive:

And you are simply ignoring the issue that the police themselves can be part of the problem:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/


Reforming police, as it turns out, is a lot harder than reforming the military, because of the decentralized way in which the thousands of police departments across the country operate, the historical affinity of certain police departments with the same racial ideologies espoused by extremists, and an even broader reluctance to do much about it.


The quickest way to put an end to this kind of situation? Actually DO something about the underlying reasons it's occurring in the first place:inquisitive:

[Gilrandir]

There are so many things wrong with all of that,


Then deal with this vast number piecemeal. Otherwise it is just a blunt denial.




First of all, vigilantism is against the law in the US. Why? People like Kyle Rittenhouse. Unless your definition of neighbor is vastly different in Ukraine, I'd hardly call driving 20 miles across statelines (and breaking the law by being under-aged for carrying an AR-15) to protect someone else's property as justified. This isn't 1776, and it's the very reason why the police force came into being, who, if they had been doing their jobs, would have quelled the looting and arson. Yes, people have a right to defend their property


I'm not speaking of nutjobs who travel miles away just to feel the thrill. I'm speaking about people who come to defend their lives and property locally. If the police can't do that they have to take the law into their hands, be those hands black or white. In the last sentence you confirmed what I said.



it can be taken to absurdity (as in St. Louis Ken and Karen).


Everything can be taken to absurdity. Like BLM protesters do when they turn a political issue into trivial looting and arsoning.



And of course you are making the same mostly asinine conclusion as our own president----that if the BLM is involved, it's gotta be the Antifa "terrorists" who are responsible,


I would kindly ask you to cite my words where ANY TERRORISTS are mentioned. They are typical depredating mob, talking of terrorists is ridiculous. As is your president.



instead of mostly far right-wing supremacists looking for an excuse to brandish their toys and go out and shoot someone who doesn't have the same skin color as their own.


There some, I'm sure. But as long as they just protect their property and lives, I don't mind. When they start hunting people down because of the skin color, hang them on the lamp posts.



Are there people participating in the BLM movement that are bad, violent, aggressive people? Yes. Has anything real been done about why the BLM is protesting in the first place? No.

I'll tell you what should have been done. First, BLM leaders should address all protesters and say that marauding isn't what they are after, they want justice and reforms, so please stop targeting innocent people and their property. If rioters don't listen they should disown them and say that from now on BLM movement has nothing to do with the depredating mobs. And ask authorities to stop violence.

Second, authorities should convene a round table with all BLM leaders and have their demands and conditions laid out on paper fair and square and start discussing what can be done at once, what will take longer, and what is impossible to accept.

Otherwise, both sides will see only their side of the story and nothing will change.




And you are simply ignoring the issue that the police themselves can be part of the problem



I'm fully aware of it.

[Crandar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMmCAbJT6U0

Any thoughts on this from our American members. I am not really qualified to judge the validity of his arguments. I'd personally believe that the shooter could not appeal to self-defense, because he had committed a felony by carrying a forbidden weapon. Also, I'm not sure about the circumstances of the second killing, according to the New York Times, shots were heard, before the militia member turned around and shot the protester at the head.

[Viking]

This is all well and good, and worth thinking about, but it inherently can't remonstrate against ongoing issues or short-to-medium term solutions/policies with any specificity. I too have wondered about a longer-term and more global-general vision for securing interethnic comity, justice, and interdependence, but I am not well-read enough on the issues; I would expect these questions have received attention yet have remained largely abstract academic discussions that have not yet filtered down into public consciousness. As with questions of capitalist dominance and climate sustainability I am constitutionally pessimistic about the eschaton.

Some of the motivation behind the recent unrest in the US is rather radical, and radical solutions can easily affect the long term, and in a big way. It pays to think long term and sustainability from the outset.


White privilege is a concept that applies to whiteness and its interactions. The more general concept is privilege, and in an intersectional framework can be identified (e.g. global light-skin privilege, Han Chinese privilege, citizenship privilege, etc.) in any appropriate context. If you don't like the term "privilege" you can substitute some alternative for clarification, such as 'relational or structural advantage of demographic feature' - but then it becomes evident how hard it is to devise terminology that is accurate, precise, and extensible, but not clunky or confusing or even emotionally burdensome.

Ultimately, it is actually having an understanding of the situation that I have in mind. Terms that are repeated over and over tend to take on a life of their own, and become divorced from the more general concepts they are instances of. In a similar manner to the way that the bald eagle in an American context presumably won't invoke the more generic concepts of 'bird' and 'eagle' just as readily as a white-tailed eagle would. To some extent, this is unavoidable; but laying the foundation for cargo cults should be much more avoidable.


A mutually-beneficial arrangement is one where structural inequities facing various immigrant groups are dissolved and individual attitudes of mutual respect between all ethnic demographics are promoted. Yes, a prerequisite of this would be considerable fiscal investment by the Swedish state (in this case) in immigrant populations. Established populations will almost inherently have an advantage over newcomers in both accumulated wealth and in opportunities to accumulate wealth, even without barriers of law or discrimination. For that reason it is unsurprising that immigrants who arrive with prior wealth or professional/academic bona fides tend to do well as cohorts. But this isn't characteristic of most immigrants where they aren't subject to strict qualifications for entry, and that kind of regime is bad for its exclusivity and for commoditizing immigrants. Maybe the reduced economic prospects of Anglosphere white youth worldwide are a factor in their relative comfort with the presence of non-white ethnics?

You know, politics has to basic aspects:


The subjective or philosophical part: what you want society to be like
The objective or empirical part: what is most likely to happen


I don't think you are doing enough to adress the second part. Is the Swedish state actually going to do "considerable fiscal investment by the Swedish state (in this case) in immigrant populations"? How are they (in a realistic manner) going to raise the money? And is pouring money on this problem actually going to solve it - do you have examples where such a strategy has been successful on a nationwide scale?


If the negative effects of immigrant hooliganism for ethnic Swedes are as yet minimal, the effects of immigrant racism (as superordinate to targeted crime) against them must be even less. I chose my words to be more accommodating!

What stands out to me is what such incidents could mean for the future, cf. the paragraph above the comment on terminology. The anti-social behaviour that constitutes hooliganism does not have any inherent direction, so then that term obscures an important connection with other similar events (namely the ethnicity profile) in a way that 'racism' would not.

While we are on the topic of Sweden, more happy news from Thursday: it turns out that more than 50 Swedish organisations with radical Islamists in their leadership have received (https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/radkala-islamister-i-mangmiljonaffarer-med-svenska-kommuner) around 1 billion SEK ($116 million) during the last five years.


I certainly hope no country would establish an immigration regime on the basis of some gratefulness quotient.

From an ethical point of view, if descendants of mistreaters owe something to the descendants of the mistreated (reparations), then through symmetry the descendants of helped people would owe something to the descendants of the helpers.

At any rate, if the asylum claims are taken at face value (and unless the bar for being granted asylum is very low), then from a gratefulness is certainly an aspect that applies here, politically relevant or not.


If you want human capital you have to provide for it. That's the hard thing; it's easy to perpetuate a mudsill. Adopting refugees is to an extent an obligation of wealth, not for Instagrammable bragging rights.

In Europe, at least, those who support more non-Western immigration tend to argue among one of two lines:


Things aren't that bad; there isn't any big issue to solve
The immigrants just need to be integrated better into society (with the how part not receiving much attention); and/or as generations pass, it will happen more or less by itself, so no need to sweat it.



But assimilation is totally distinct from integration.

By definition it is, but if integration is supposed to be a goal to aim for that is good enough when it comes to the topic of immigration, the question is how much assimilation is required before the integration is good enough (i.e. I assume that in practice, integration often means taking up elements of the other culture rather than merely adapting to its presence and requirements without actually mirroring it).



Interracial marriage has pretty much always been accepted by most African Americans, but Americans overall only polled at majority approval (tolerance?) of interracial marriage from the Clinton administration! A Supreme Court case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) didn't create that - but it was probably necessary.

Then the situation in Europe is reversed in many cases, when the woman is non-Western and the man is European. Maybe you can find some gender-related differences in the US, too.



I don't believe all your questions can ever be resolved on a so-called "national" basis, country by country, just as it's obvious that the great historic struggles over economic organization and sociopolitical power can no longer be contended with in a totally meta-pluralistic dispensation, which has been the implicit arrangement forever - there has to be a transition toward recognizing a transnational polity, both because a country is a jurisdiction but not much more, because corporate jurisdictions are not substantively different from those of organized crime syndicates, because all Earth-dwellers owe something to one another, and because we can realize a greater good by equalizing each other psychologically and materially (toward prosperity and flourishing).

A democratically minded international order requires that the democratic countries together are stronger than the non-democratic ones. Individual countries must work well before an international order can work well. Policies that undermine the trust in democratic institutions in individual countries will undermine a world order that is supportive of democracy.

It's not an authoritarian turn in countries like Hungary and Poland that should be worrying, because democracy likely never became firmly embedded in the local culture in these two countries in the first place. It's the countries where the democratic institution has long and very firm roots that should be in focus, because if democracy falters here, it could be wiped out in its entirety for a long time.

Now if you unleash demographic revolutions in such countries, then an obvious possibility, even from a very superficial perspective, is that the local culture experiences upheaval; and one element of the culture that could be turned on its head is the trust in democracy and a cooperative society. What has been learnt over many generations can be unlearnt.


This causal structure in a lot of contexts sounds like an argument for proactivity to me.

Indeed.

[ReluctantSamurai]

That is why I would be on the side of the militias (no matter black, white or of any other race) who try to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arsons.

Let me introduce you to these "militia" groups:

3 Percenters, Oath Keepers, Hutaree, and the Michigan Militia, to name a few. All are far right-wing radicals, or support other groups who are. The 3 Percenters and the Oath Keepers are probably the most violent, but for all these groups, firepower is the first and final answer to everything. Yep, "Very Fine People".


No, protesters choose a different modus operandi - to target the innocent and their property.

OK, rioters then. You've no evidence that these 'rioters' are from the BLM movement. In fact, if Kenosha is any indication, the 'rioters' are often the "militia" themselves:

https://www.newsweek.com/kenosha-militia-facebook-1528529


"There were lots of comments like that in the event," she said. "People talking about being 'locked and loaded.' People asking what types of weapons and people responding to 'bring everything.'"

And...


First, BLM leaders should address all protesters and say that marauding isn't what they are after, they want justice and reforms, so please stop targeting innocent people and their property. If rioters don't listen they should disown them and say that from now on BLM movement has nothing to do with the depredating mobs. And ask authorities to stop violence.

Been done. Weak, half-assed responses from some, totally ignored by most. The officers who killed Breonna Taylor haven't even been charged and it's been over 5 months....POC have been "asking authorities to stop violence" for decades. Time to stop asking nicely......

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Part of the issue at hand -- and part of the motivation for looting and vandalism -- is that it is NOT simply the police acting in a racist manner all too often, but the entirety of the system that is perceived to have been established so as to prevent advancement and opportunity and enact second class citizenship for Americans of African descent. So, looting is, on some level, a form of protest and attack on the extent system in the minds of some of those involved. Add in opportunists seeking to steal when little can be done to prevent it and you end up with the looting commonly associated with racial tension riots here in the USA.

While I don't think looting will accomplish the goal of equality, it is evident that patiently waiting for the powers-who-are to change things hasn't worked very well for the last half century. Change occurs when protests FORCE our majority (biggest plurality now, I think, but majority in the sense of being the dominant co-culture) to actually think about what the flip is happening and why it is wrong and actually threaten the jobs of our pols -- who then work hard to try to be on the right side of history as they 'always wanted to.'

Yes, that last is tongue in cheek.

[Gilrandir]

Let me introduce you to these "militia" groups:

3 Percenters, Oath Keepers, Hutaree, and the Michigan Militia, to name a few. All are far right-wing radicals, or support other groups who are. The 3 Percenters and the Oath Keepers are probably the most violent, but for all these groups, firepower is the first and final answer to everything. Yep, "Very Fine People".


I have no idea who are those capitalized. But, like I said, if they limit their activities to protecting their families and property, their ideology doens't matter to me. When they start excessive actions, hang them on the lamp posts. Next to looters.



OK, rioters then. You've no evidence that these 'rioters' are from the BLM movement. In fact, if Kenosha is any indication, the 'rioters' are often the "militia" themselves:


I have no evidence that militia consist of exclusively 3 Percenters, Oath Keepers, Hutaree, and the Michigan Militia - only your claim. But if rioters have nothing to do with BLM, why didn't the latter say it?



Been done. Weak, half-assed responses from some, totally ignored by most. The officers who killed Breonna Taylor haven't even been charged and it's been over 5 months....POC have been "asking authorities to stop violence" for decades. Time to stop asking nicely......

I mean asking authorities to put an end to rioting.

As for stopping the POLICE violence: ask in whatever way you think appropriate. But ask the AUTHORITIES! Not try to damage innocent people's property! Don't the rioters realize that they instill negative atttitude to their political agenda (if there is any except looting) by targeting the innocent?

And what about BLM disowning rioters? Been done?


Part of the issue at hand -- and part of the motivation for looting and vandalism -- is that it is NOT simply the police acting in a racist manner all too often, but the entirety of the system that is perceived to have been established so as to prevent advancement and opportunity and enact second class citizenship for Americans of African descent. So, looting is, on some level, a form of protest and attack on the extent system in the minds of some of those involved. Add in opportunists seeking to steal when little can be done to prevent it and you end up with the looting commonly associated with racial tension riots here in the USA.


Many social groups around the world (and sometimes all of them together) come out to voice their resentment. But, somehow, many of them keep within decency limits like it was in the 1960s in the MLK epoch, in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, in Ukraine in 2004 and 2013/14, in Armenia in 2018, in Hong Kong in 2019, in Belarus just now and even during Occupy Wall street events. By decency limits I mean fighting the authorities, not their fellow citizens. How come current tensions are so mistargeted?




While I don't think looting will accomplish the goal of equality, it is evident that patiently waiting for the powers-who-are to change things hasn't worked very well for the last half century. Change occurs when protests FORCE our majority (biggest plurality now, I think, but majority in the sense of being the dominant co-culture) to actually think about what the flip is happening and why it is wrong and actually threaten the jobs of our pols -- who then work hard to try to be on the right side of history as they 'always wanted to.'

Yes, that last is tongue in cheek.

It is indeed a strange way to accomplish ANY political goal. It is like your neighbor's dog killed your cat, so you go along the street smashing windows in entire neighborhood and carrying out people's TVs to take revenge a upon the cat-killer. Would those people support you in the feud? I doubt it strongly.

[Montmorency]

During Maidan, protesters never smashed widows or burned cars. That is, if they attacked buildings those were administrative ones or offices of the ruling party. Otherwise, you could sit in a Kyiv cafe drinking coffee and watch protesters march along the street outside. They never tried to damage anything just for the sake of damage (or loot). Because they realiazed that all such businesses and shops were ultimately US. And THEM against who they were fighting were the authorities. That is why the owners of such businesses often donated money and food to them or invited them for a free meal.

Did you support the removal of the Yanukovych government? If so, you would no longer have endorsed that objective had there been, to your knowledge, any private property damage? If not, why not? If so, why is a revolutionary overthrow of government without apparent property damage more legitimate than a protest against police abuse with any such damage?


What do we see in the USA? The police is being brutal to people. Do people surround police departments, smoke 'em out and hang the bastards on the lamp posts along the road? That is an exaggeration, of course, but even if that happened I would understand that (if not support). No, protesters choose a different modus operandi - to target the innocent and their property.

That is not true. There are very few protesters who advocate property destruction as a political tactic. The most famous property damage of the June protests was against police stations and vehicles and government property. The second-most famous instance was, and this says something bad about us and the media, the burgling of fancy stores in midtown/lower Manhattan (which police (https://www.insider.com/nypd-watched-looters-ransack-stores-manhattan-2020-6) refused to stop). Much of the protests in Kenosha were taking place at or near a court house. Are you more comfortable with that?


But protesters unleash their rage on those who have nothing to do with what they are fighting against thus turning them into adversaries.

Then condemn those people if you must - but the underlying issue here is that you have always resisted the aims of even the peaceful protesters.


That is why I would be on the side of the militias (no matter black, white or of any other race) who try to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arsons.

While this is no surprising revelation, you would accordingly be on the side of fascist thugs who enter communities to perpetrate aggression and terror and have likely never protected themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arson in their lives - all after you freaked out at the very existence of black men with guns. I'm on the side of those demanding law and order and justice.

In all the furor, the people who claim their overriding social priority as the condemnation of vandalism never seem to ask where the police are. Why have police consistently concentrated and instigated force against demonstrators while deliberately ceding city streets to 'marauders?' Why do police act in ways that promote violence and chaos while repressing people's rights? It's almost like police don't protect people and communities, in which case it should be fairly easy for looter-panic and police reform to find common ground. The local government promptly securing the arrest and indictment of the police from the inciting incident, the Blake shooting (they were only placed them on administrative leave AFAIK), would have been an easy way to defuse unrest, and it would have been the right thing to do. If there were an actual interest in resolving and averting the ingredients of unrest, clear answers are available. But altogether too many seem perfectly glad to take burned storefronts as a price and opportunity for encouraging state and private violence against disfavored demographics.

Beyond all that, I can't help but notice a trend or East-Slavic fetish, at least in connection to America society, for the idea of lethal violence in defense of "svoju chastnoju sobstvennost (one's private property)." Whereas I believe even most Americans would categorically disapprove of instigating lethal violence in the absence of any threat to persons, and I'm curious as to whether such a thing is even legal under any circumstances in Russia or Ukraine.


Any thoughts on this from our American members. I am not really qualified to judge the validity of his arguments. I'd personally believe that the shooter could not appeal to self-defense, because he had committed a felony by carrying a forbidden weapon. Also, I'm not sure about the circumstances of the second killing, according to the New York Times, shots were heard, before the militia member turned around and shot the protester at the head.

I posted a bunch of links to videos of the night, but here's a basic summary of events involving Rittenhouse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

Can you summarize the embedded Youtuber's perspective? I'm not watching an hour of that.

Tangentially, something I've only seen remarked on is passing is the elevated tension throughout the Rittenhouse incidents created by the peripheral gunfire coming from unknown individuals. It's easy to see how such an environment could have contributed to the mindsets of the principals on the scene. In the first scene, when Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, the protester, were alone in a parking lot, Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag in Rittenhouse's direction. Suddenly, someone else opened fire in the distance in their general direction, Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse's rifle, and the latter fired four times, hitting Rosenbaum in the head. In the most charitable reading for the killer, the gunshot could have been a trigger that led both of the principals to believe and act as though they were under attack. (And during the second altercation between Rittenhouse and protesters trying to subdue him, there were multiple gunshots during the fracas that do not appear to have come from either Rittenhouse or Grosskreutz (Ritterkreutz!))

It further goes to show that having lots of guns on the street is the enemy of civil peace.


Part of the issue at hand -- and part of the motivation for looting and vandalism -- is that it is NOT simply the police acting in a racist manner all too often, but the entirety of the system that is perceived to have been established so as to prevent advancement and opportunity and enact second class citizenship for Americans of African descent. So, looting is, on some level, a form of protest and attack on the extent system in the minds of some of those involved. Add in opportunists seeking to steal when little can be done to prevent it and you end up with the looting commonly associated with racial tension riots here in the USA

Just a side note, but Kenosha is estimated to be 80% white, 10% black, so (unsurprisingly) most of the videos you'll see from events there depict largely white people. It matters not just for curbing the stereotype of black people as inherently criminal or disorderly, but for the fact of unprecedented white support for and engagement with the movement. In the 1960s you only really saw tens of thousands of whites marching with blacks, now it's millions. (Tangentially, the success of the 1960s civil rights movement disproportionate to its often-small scale might be what has led to the overpopularization of small but persistent protest and activist groups through the past half-century, the sort that no one ever hears about because what was novel in the 1960s no longer made the same impact tactically as the system and culture adjusted. A few hundred protesters in the 60s could get you on one of the 3, or whatever, national TV channels! Now you'll be lucky to break local news. Unless you're a right-wing group that is.)



Some of the motivation behind the recent unrest in the US is rather radical, and radical solutions can easily affect the long term, and in a big way. It pays to think long term and sustainability from the outset.

If you're referring to the old far-left standbys of prison and police abolition, well, white people were singing about that a hundred years ago. I think proponents might argue that (re)introducing the concepts to public discourse is exactly what will potentiate serious thought on long-term and sustainable reform and implementation. At any rate, I'm happy to have the space in the Overton Window.



Ultimately, it is actually having an understanding of the situation that I have in mind. Terms that are repeated over and over tend to take on a life of their own, and become divorced from the more general concepts they are instances of. In a similar manner to the way that the bald eagle in an American context presumably won't invoke the more generic concepts of 'bird' and 'eagle' just as readily as a white-tailed eagle would. To some extent, this is unavoidable; but laying the foundation for cargo cults should be much more avoidable.

As I mentioned in the response to Seamus, it is easy for ideas or trends to become divorced from their original context. Cargo cults are imitation of visible, perhaps epiphenomenal, manifestation without association to underlying causality. So for a lot of groups, the formula is that X succeeded in the 1960s, if we do X, we'll succeed, but the contemporary situation may be unsuited. There is certainly a tendency for left-wing narrativization ito become a cargo cult-like cultural memory of past glories, which we need to move past. But the thing you should keep in mind is that left-wing elements have had very little power to implement their vision, so what you have is a very fragmented intellectual landscape filtered through the symbolic elements mainstream politicians are most willing to coopt. There is no real consensus-making force to create the kind of rigorous standardization you seem to be hinting at, which to a certain degree has probably never been achieved in any context. And ultimately, the problems you adumbrate are the ones we should prefer to have to the ones we do have. No one can afford to wait upon the auspicious advent of the Ultimate Final Solution to X.


I don't think you are doing enough to adress the second part. Is the Swedish state actually going to do "considerable fiscal investment by the Swedish state (in this case) in immigrant populations"? How are they (in a realistic manner) going to raise the money? And is pouring money on this problem actually going to solve it - do you have examples where such a strategy has been successful on a nationwide scale?

Why are the failures of state and society to be loaded onto the most marginal, since that's logically what you're pointing to?

I'm not aware of any comprehensive national program to uplift minorities in the West, though there might have been something vaguely gesturing at that in the big Communist countries, PRC and USSR, but on a smaller scale I've been aware of plenty of efforts targeting disadvantaged groups that bear measurable success. One of the most powerful in the long-term, at least in terms that aren't strictly material, is school integration (the material component is indirect, in the upgraded services and education non-whites experience). The practical difficulty with this policy is that it is enormously unpopular with white parents, even liberal ones, who in extremity have, and have had, a strong tendency to relocate to evade integration. This is a problem with white parents!

Obviously any reform of contemporary society, with respect to the coexistence of ethnic groups or anything else, demands an economic reorganization towards decreasing, not increasing, inequality, and the downward redistribution of wealth and resources. For now this priority remains much more difficult to achieve in an equitable and sustainable way on a global scale than in the wealthy countries collectively - so maybe we should start there.


What stands out to me is what such incidents could mean for the future, cf. the paragraph above the comment on terminology. The anti-social behaviour that constitutes hooliganism does not have any inherent direction, so then that term obscures an important connection with other similar events (namely the ethnicity profile) in a way that 'racism' would not.

It's just, you're worried about the nebulous possibility that non-ethnic Swedes will soon both gain enough social power and ethnic animosity toward ethnic Swedes (but not whites in general?) as to distinctly marginalize ethnic Swedes, but not very worried about the racism and disadvantages faced by those populations up through the present. The former future remains a fever dream, while the latter has a definite and ongoing continuation.

At any rate, the first can be foreclosed definitively by addressing the latter - further highlighting the misalignment of priorities.


While we are on the topic of Sweden, more happy news from Thursday: it turns out that more than 50 Swedish organisations with radical Islamists in their leadership have received (https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/radkala-islamister-i-mangmiljonaffarer-med-svenska-kommuner) around 1 billion SEK ($116 million) during the last five years.

What do you mean by "received?" The article conveys that these are legally-valid organizations that receive some sort of payment for "business" from the state, which I assume is in the context of a Swedish educational system where private schools are subsidized by the state. Am I off-base or missing something?


From an ethical point of view, if descendants of mistreaters owe something to the descendants of the mistreated (reparations), then through symmetry the descendants of helped people would owe something to the descendants of the helpers.

Well, not really if one accepts that people deserve to be treated well but don't deserve to be mistreated. Anyway, to my mind the most significant aspect of a program of reparations is not to calculate and indemnify past damages so much as to reform the present society and ameliorate its inequities and flaws. Because a "nation" or other demographic as a legal fiction is more difficult to construct and treat with than the streamlined package of a state or defined organization, it's much easier to engage legal and compensatory relations between governmental and corporate entities than with demographic groups (e.g. compensating land theft from individual Amerindian tribes would itself be almost impossible compared to compensating all Amerindians as a class); on the other hand, it is also relatively easy to take stock of what the contemporary social landscape is, and how we got there, and develop an affirmative plan to cure its deficiencies. For a better world to be attained, we really do have to conclusively resolve and banish all the preexisting conflicts, up to the level of interstate relations, and equalize interpersonal relations. Aksai Chin and discrimination against alloethnics are all pieces of the human millstone, and cannot really be dissolved unilaterally or bilaterally but within the framework (long-term, as you please) of a new world order.


In Europe, at least, those who support more non-Western immigration tend to argue among one of two lines:


Things aren't that bad; there isn't any big issue to solve
The immigrants just need to be integrated better into society (with the how part not receiving much attention); and/or as generations pass, it will happen more or less by itself, so no need to sweat it.


I'm somewhat sympathetic to both those views, but leftists (and this is better-developed in the Anglosphere), as well as hardcore libertarians (also more prominent in Anglosphere), would make the following arguments, or at least the libertarians would agree on the first:

1. States have very limited inherent authority to traduce the external and internal movement of people, because people have a natural right not to be traduced in their movements.
2. While the utilitarian balance for widespread migration is at worst unclear or contingent from the perspective of citizens (though it can also be very productive), there is a clear utilitarian benefit for migrants as a class, in particular low-SES refugees and migrants.

The moral cases developing the above have become increasingly persuasive to me over the past years, and if one accepts the fundamental equality of persons then they are almost irrefutable. Though I would still say we should move with some caution, both for reasons of political sentiment and because the reality of the world-system today is that it is divided up into myriad jurisdictions with coercive authority over their residents/citizens/subjects - such jurisdictions can't unilaterally abjure their authorities, it should be done in a coordinated fashion. So I wouldn't, say, advocate absolute open borders to the point where any day-tourist has equal voting rights to a lifelong resident, but it is clear to me that many restrictions are unjustifiable.


Individual countries must work well before an international order can work well.

While "work well" is a load-bearing phrase here with indefinite meaning, I would say that in our world it will not be possible to achieve an additive effect of 'countries that solved all their problems unite to do even better'; I don't know whether it is possible or available, but for countries to improve or even maintain their existing positives and advantages, they will have to take a leap and cooperate synergistically


Policies that undermine the trust in democratic institutions in individual countries will undermine a world order that is supportive of democracy.

You've been saying that for a decade, that heterogeneity creates an unacceptable level of friction, and therefore homogeneity is the top priority, but I continue to reject that as in practice both naive and immoral. The core of Reaction is not opposition to external difference but internal difference; no one is safe. And to the extent, as you would retort, Reaction is empowered by ethnic flux, this would seem to be a short-term phenomenon. Rising generations of more diverse populations appear better placed to resist Reaction. (It will be interesting to compare South Korea and Japan to Europe in 20 years now that they've opened themselves to immigration.)

Now, if we actually had a quasi-Trotskyite nascent international order, with the United States marginalizing internal white supremacy and building a coalition of states aggressively promoting multiethnic democracy around the world, I could maybe accede to components of your perspective as a matter of strategic prioritization, a racial Domino Theory. That is, the transnational liberal alliance would prioritize 'converting' the lowest hanging fruit and strengthening its own position in such a way that it could optimally target more recalcitrant societies later on for cascading revolution. In that case, maybe we could temporarily tolerate ethnocentrism in places like Hungary while shoring up France and Germany.

But there is no coordinated strategy or superpower coming to help us, so we have to make do improvisationally anywhere we can. The international scope of the Black Lives Matter protests was a promising signal. A maximalist realization of common feeling would be, like, a billion people striking across North America, Europe, and India to demand minority rights in China.


It's not an authoritarian turn in countries like Hungary and Poland that should be worrying, because democracy likely never became firmly embedded in the local culture in these two countries in the first place. It's the countries where the democratic institution has long and very firm roots that should be in focus, because if democracy falters here, it could be wiped out in its entirety for a long time.

As I've sometimes pointed out, no - it is exactly the failure of democracy in many places throughout the world over the past generation that should be deeply alarming to all of us in so-called "mature" democracies, because the human limitation is a universal one and manifests everywhere. The past five years should really amply demonstrate this point, don't you think, the inherent fragility of rooted institutions (that typically have only really been that rooted for 20, 50, 100 years at most)? Liberal democracy is not an achievement but a permanent struggle, a tenuous order under siege from its enemies, analogous to the fictional conflict between Jedi and Sith in surprising ways. Even though it is consistently shown that most modern humans want some level of democracy in their lives, democracy is difficult to establish, difficult to maintain, and easy to subvert.

Per the response to some of the previous excerpts, consider how many simultaneous and overlapping civilizational crises and upheavals we face. Inequality and oligarchy, fascism, climate change, cultural change... - to say nothing of unique national issues. No one country has the luxury of simply resolving these sequentially and then moving on to other concerns, no more than a human being has a chance of 'perfecting their own private life' before engaging with their community.


Now if you unleash demographic revolutions in such countries, then an obvious possibility, even from a very superficial perspective, is that the local culture experiences upheaval; and one element of the culture that could be turned on its head is the trust in democracy and a cooperative society. What has been learnt over many generations can be unlearnt.

What do you think of the essay I linked?

[Gilrandir]

Did you support the removal of the Yanukovych government? If so, you would no longer have endorsed that objective had there been, to your knowledge, any private property damage? If not, why not? If so, why is a revolutionary overthrow of government without apparent property damage more legitimate than a protest against police abuse with any such damage?


It is not about being legitimate or not, it is about the lack of common sense. Protesters demand "law and order and justice", as you say, but by that they mean all these FOR THEMSELVES, and not for those who happened to own shops on a wrong street. If this is "justice for all" why do you attack innocent people's property? They aren't included into all? How are they guilty in the depravity of the police? Do the rioters realize that they alienate people by looting?



That is not true. There are very few protesters who advocate property destruction as a political tactic. The most famous property damage of the June protests was against police stations and vehicles and government property. The second-most famous instance was, and this says something bad about us and the media, the burgling of fancy stores in midtown/lower Manhattan (which police (https://www.insider.com/nypd-watched-looters-ransack-stores-manhattan-2020-6) refused to stop). Much of the protests in Kenosha were taking place at or near a court house. Are you more comfortable with that?


I'm not comfortable with the fact that innocent people's property was targeted on one simple reason - that it was located in a wrong place.

And the idea that civil protests could be held WITHOUT any looting never seems to occur to you.



Then condemn those people if you must - but the underlying issue here is that you have always resisted the aims of even the peaceful protesters.


This is one of your ideas that has been ascribed to me but never was voiced or hinted by me.

My two basic frustrations connected with the issue were (and are):
1. One should't be making a saint out of a hardened criminal.
2. Innocent people and their property shouldn't be targeted in a political movement against the authorities.



While this is no surprising revelation, you would accordingly be on the side of fascist thugs who enter communities to perpetrate aggression and terror and have likely never protected themselves, their neighbors, and their property from unjustified violence, looting, and arson in their lives - all after you freaked out at the very existence of black men with guns. I'm on the side of those demanding law and order and justice.


You seem to be getting worked up. Try to read what I wrote instead of putting YOUR ideas and expectations into MY head. This is what I wrote in post # 206:

if they limit their activities to protecting their families and property, their ideology doens't matter to me. When they start excessive actions, hang them on the lamp posts. Next to looters.




Beyond all that, I can't help but notice a trend or East-Slavic fetish, at least in connection to America society, for the idea of lethal violence in defense of "svoju chastnoju sobstvennost (one's private property)."


chastnoju - chastnUju

And I help but notice your staunch attempts to whitewash (or is the politically correct term blackwash?) marauding. Phrases like "condemn them if you must" or "are you comfortable now" together with emphasizing that it was mostly fancy shops that were plundered suggest that you yourself don't condemn, but justify and even approve of the looting. "Those reach white shop owners wouldn't get any poorer if the right cause fighters relieve them of some ill-gotten jewelry and electronics they own by oppressing other races", right? Something like "Dresden bombing was what those Nazi bastards deserve" or "Soviet troops raped German women, and serve them right. They should have never lived together with their husbands, fathers, and sons, who acted like that in the USSR."



I'm curious as to whether such a thing is even legal under any circumstances in Russia or Ukraine.



I don't know what is legal in Russia. I believe in a dictatorship legal is everything what the dictator blesses.

As for Ukraine: I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. If you are so much curious, don't restrain your curiosity and research it.

[Shaka_Khan]

I'd hate to be a cop now, not knowing which person on the streets isn't dangerous, while all those shootings are going on.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Any thoughts on this from our American members. I am not really qualified to judge the validity of his arguments.

Nor am I qualified, but if I had to guess, I'd say he gets off on the murder charges, or at least has the severity greatly reduced. There will probably be some sort of illegal weapons charge due to being under age. It's America.....stupid shit like this happens all the time:dizzy2:

[Hooahguy]

I'm not sure its that simple. If he was on his own property there would be a strong self-defense case (at least with the second killing, the first one is murkier) but the undisputed fact is that he, an underage teen who shouldn't have been carrying a weapon in the first place, crossed state lines and killed people. And then went back across state lines after killing two people which may be an added charge. Murder requires intent so it will hinge on whether or not a jury agrees that going to a site of protests with a rifle is intent to kill. Whether or not he had the personal intent to cause violence isnt clear, but at the same time its hard to see going into another state with a rifle as anything but provocative. I do not doubt that the defense will argue that he was being a patriot to protect people and got caught up in the mob but who knows how a jury will see it.

There was another killing in Portland last night, this time an alt-right militia guy who was the victim. This is going to get so much worse before it gets any better.

[Shaka_Khan]

Either way the jury chooses, I'm afraid that there'll be a lot of upset people.

[Pannonian]

I'm not sure its that simple. If he was on his own property there would be a strong self-defense case (at least with the second killing, the first one is murkier) but the undisputed fact is that he, an underage teen who shouldn't have been carrying a weapon in the first place, crossed state lines and killed people. And then went back across state lines after killing two people which may be an added charge. Murder requires intent so it will hinge on whether or not a jury agrees that going to a site of protests with a rifle is intent to kill. Whether or not he had the personal intent to cause violence isnt clear, but at the same time its hard to see going into another state with a rifle as anything but provocative. I do not doubt that the defense will argue that he was being a patriot to protect people and got caught up in the mob but who knows how a jury will see it.

There was another killing in Portland last night, this time an alt-right militia guy who was the victim. This is going to get so much worse before it gets any better.

It's every American's right to go hunting with a rifle. He went out hunting, bagged himself 2 kills, and went home. How much more American can you get? That his prey were fellow Americans is besides the point.

[Montmorency]

Ugh, did I really say traduce when I meant impede?


I posted about this (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm) a couple years back, but I sure damn hope it isn't looking increasingly timely/prescient vis-a-vis the mood on particular sectors of the left.


1. At the moment, while the democratic petty bourgeois are everywhere oppressed, they preach to the proletariat general unity and reconciliation; they extend the hand of friendship, and seek to found a great opposition party which will embrace all shades of democratic opinion; that is, they seek to ensnare the workers in a party organization in which general social-democratic phrases prevail while their particular interests are kept hidden behind, and in which, for the sake of preserving the peace, the specific demands of the proletariat may not be presented. Such a unity would be to their advantage alone and to the complete disadvantage of the proletariat. The proletariat would lose all its hard-won independent position and be reduced once more to a mere appendage of official bourgeois democracy. This unity must therefore be resisted in the most decisive manner. Instead of lowering themselves to the level of an applauding chorus, the workers, and above all the League, must work for the creation of an independent organization of the workers’ party, both secret and open, and alongside the official democrats, and the League must aim to make every one of its communes a center and nucleus of workers’ associations in which the position and interests of the proletariat can be discussed free from bourgeois influence. How serious the bourgeois democrats are about an alliance in which the proletariat has equal power and equal rights is demonstrated by the Breslau democrats, who are conducting a furious campaign in their organ, the Neue Oder Zeitung, against independently organized workers, whom they call ‘socialists’. In the event of a struggle against a common enemy a special alliance is unnecessary. As soon as such an enemy has to be fought directly, the interests of both parties will coincide for the moment and an association of momentary expedience will arise spontaneously in the future, as it has in the past. It goes without saying that in the bloody conflicts to come, as in all others, it will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. As in the past, so in the coming struggle also, the petty bourgeoisie, to a man, will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive; but when victory is certain it will claim it for itself and will call upon the workers to behave in an orderly fashion, to return to work and to prevent so-called excesses, and it will exclude the proletariat from the fruits of victory. It does not lie within the power of the workers to prevent the petty-bourgeois democrats from doing this; but it does lie within their power to make it as difficult as possible for the petty bourgeoisie to use its power against the armed proletariat, and to dictate such conditions to them that the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier. Above all, during and immediately after the struggle the workers, as far as it is at all possible, must oppose bourgeois attempts at pacification and force the democrats to carry out their terroristic phrases. They must work to ensure that the immediate revolutionary excitement is not suddenly suppressed after the victory. On the contrary, it must be sustained as long as possible. Far from opposing the so-called excesses – instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated – the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction. During and after the struggle the workers must at every opportunity put forward their own demands against those of the bourgeois democrats. They must demand guarantees for the workers as soon as the democratic bourgeoisie sets about taking over the government. They must achieve these guarantees by force if necessary, and generally make sure that the new rulers commit themselves to all possible concessions and promises – the surest means of compromising them. They must check in every way and as far as is possible the victory euphoria and enthusiasm for the new situation which follow every successful street battle, with a cool and cold-blooded analysis of the situation and with undisguised mistrust of the new government. Alongside the new official governments they must simultaneously establish their own revolutionary workers’ governments, either in the form of local executive committees and councils or through workers’ clubs or committees, so that the bourgeois-democratic governments not only immediately lost the support of the workers but find themselves from the very beginning supervised and threatened by authorities behind which stand the whole mass of the workers. In a word, from the very moment of victory the workers’ suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally, against the party which intends to exploit the common victory for itself.

2. To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.


Replace "bourgeois democrats" with "establishment Democrats," replace "petty bourgeoisie" with "neoliberal" or "PMC," and with a couple tweaks you could repost this as OC in some corners of the Internet.

More on the killing of a Patriot Prayer member in Portland: https://heavy.com/news/2020/08/michael-reinoehl/

Some refreshers on what the Republican Party and their militias have been up to in Oregon lately:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/oregon-legislature-climate-change-bill-chaos.html
https://psmag.com/ideas/what-the-oregon-state-senate-standoff-tells-us-about-the-gop-and-the-far-right

This is to my knowledge the first time one of these militia men has been killed at any protest in however many years or decades, maybe ever. Whether or not it is determined that the killer was a leftist (i.e. Horst Wessel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel) style assassination), I expect militia aggression to escalate. The mainstream Republican embrace of Wisconsin shooter Rittenhouse is a strong indicator.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3KJQ-Cckdg

[Montmorency]

How apt, Pan.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-possession-gun-protected-second-amendment-n1238918


Analysis: [Rittenhouse] attorney plans to argue that the teen was part of a “well regulated Militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment.



It is not about being legitimate or not, it is about the lack of common sense. Protesters demand "law and order and justice", as you say, but by that they mean all these FOR THEMSELVES, and not for those who happened to own shops on a wrong street. If this is "justice for all" why do you attack innocent people's property? They aren't included into all? How are they guilty in the depravity of the police? Do the rioters realize that they alienate people by looting?

Are you talking about your opinion or someone else's opinion? If it's someone else's opinion, then why are you hung up? If it's your opinion, then it matters how you would relate to a more destructive Maidan movement. Explain yourself.

Rioters don't care who they're alienating because they rarely have a political motive in looting. As a subset relation, most rioters are probably supportive of BLM, but few BLM participants and supporters are rioters. This is unsurprising when you consider that BLM, like most mass protest movements, is not a top-down hierarchical organization but a banner and symbol people relate to. BLM can't control people around protest areas; they're not police. Here's an example of an ideological argument (https://thenewinquiry.com/in-defense-of-looting/) in favor of looting. You might be on slightly less-shaky ground if BLM organizers were trying to foment and coordinate violence.


I'm not comfortable with the fact that innocent people's property was targeted on one simple reason - that it was located in a wrong place.

And the idea that civil protests could be held WITHOUT any looting never seems to occur to you.

No, it's exactly that the protests are generally peaceful that should occur to you! Here (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53954697) was the latest big one.

From what I've observed most of the major arson and commercial vandalism takes place at night, whereas most protesters are active by day. If the police have what it takes to physically assault groups in their hundreds and thousands, surely they can cruise around commercial premises on patrols to discourage looting (during those timeframes when sentiment is running hot).

What's grimly funny about it is that in the 1960s the civil rights movement and parallel social unrest was much more violent/militant and much less popular than it is today ("the riot is the language of the unheard" - MLK).

Maybe thinking about it this way will help: When private persons suffer financial or other damages simply because they or their business, workplace, or place of patronage were in the wrong place it is a source of distress or harm to them and it doesn't really help anything. But you seem to be under the incorrect apprehensions that this kind of activity is more widespread and more calculated than it actually is. In reality most of the responsibility falls on government and police for failing to protect the People, from end to end. If someone is alarmed by looting or other disorder or violence, they should presumably have an interest in identifying causes and solutions. It's pretty straightforward, as is captured by the slogan "no justice, no peace." Civil peace is secured by the curing of grievances, not by further repression or dismissal. The fact that police refuse to curtail looting or arson directly buttresses the purported grievances and goals of BLM.


This is one of your ideas that has been ascribed to me but never was voiced or hinted by me.

My two basic frustrations connected with the issue were (and are):
1. One should't be making a saint out of a hardened criminal.
2. Innocent people and their property shouldn't be targeted in a political movement against the authorities.

Floyd's not a saint, he's a victim, as is always the case. No one treats him like a saint. The protesters killed by government forces in Kiev didn't need to be saints to be victims. His family and friends of course have a high opinion of him, as the friends and family of the fascist killed in Portland have for him. From all I've seen Floyd was the better man, but that's beside the point. This sort of police abuse (and if you have such distaste for Floyd you can pick one of the dozens of other well-known names to emphasize) would be unconscionable if it happened to a freaking former death camp commandant.

Most BLM supporters (and there are tens of millions) agree. So you're contradicting yourself. If your support of a cause is independent of its content and context, but dependent on the presence or absence of any property damage, then you just don't support it and never did, which is the operative fact. Exactly as I ascribed.


You seem to be getting worked up. Try to read what I wrote instead of putting YOUR ideas and expectations into MY head. This is what I wrote in post # 206:

if they limit their activities to protecting their families and property, their ideology doens't matter to me. When they start excessive actions, hang them on the lamp posts. Next to looters.

Doesn't seem relevant in the context of people who don't fit that description. I have the measure of your expectations. You think protesters are an inherent threat and favor proactive organized resistance to them. It's what you're actually saying. If that's not representative of your beliefs, try communicating in a way that isn't contrary to them.


And I help but notice your staunch attempts to whitewash (or is the politically correct term blackwash?) marauding. Phrases like "condemn them if you must" or "are you comfortable now" together with emphasizing that it was mostly fancy shops that were plundered suggest that you yourself don't condemn, but justify and even approve of the looting.

I do have at least as much sympathy about losses to small business owners than about fur coats and designer labels, and I think it's bad that more prestigious establishments receive more attention as though they're somehow more valuable (other than in net worth or revenue). That's all.

If you care about incidental damage to businesses but don't care about racism, inequality, and oppression then your moral compass is poorly calibrated. It's more like saying, Soviet soldiers are rapists* so I wish the Nazis could have secured their surrender (logically, their enslavement or annihilation). You can try caring about both. Indeed, it should be very easy to do so when the preservation of one and the other are mutually aligned and furthered! To say it plainly, BLM is anti-riot, Trump and the police are pro-riot. Make your choice.

*Orthogonal: Probably more rapists among Soviet soldiers than among BLM supporters or the American public at large. And at least they had guns, tanks, and planes.


"Those reach

*reech

[Hooahguy]

Speaking of trying to make a sinner out of a victim, this is pretty sinister-

Drug suspect offered July plea deal if he would admit Breonna Taylor part of 'organized crime syndicate' (https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/drug-suspect-offered-july-plea-deal-if-he-would-admit-breonna-taylor-part-of-organized/article_df18d6e0-ebaf-11ea-b636-9ff3afe1f8ed.html)


Jamarcus Glover, the focus of a series of Louisville police raids, including one in which officers shot and killed Breonna Taylor, was offered a plea bargain last month if he would say that Taylor was a member of his “organized crime syndicate,” records show.

As part of the July 13 offer, Glover was to acknowledge that over a period of time through April 22 he and several “co-defendants,” including Taylor, engaged in organized crime by trafficking large amounts of drugs “into the Louisville community.”

Glover, a convicted felon with a history of drug trafficking, turned down the plea offer from the Jefferson Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office. It would have resulted in a possible 10-year prison sentence on charges of criminal syndication, drug trafficking and gun charges.

If he had taken the plea, Glover could possibly had been released on probation instead of serving prison time. That decision would have been up to the sentencing judge.

The crime syndicate organization, according to the plea offer obtained by WDRB News, sold drugs mainly from abandoned or vacant houses on Elliott Avenue in the Russell neighborhood.

Taylor lived about 10 miles away in an apartment on Springfield Drive.

[Viking]

But the thing you should keep in mind is that left-wing elements have had very little power to implement their vision, so what you have is a very fragmented intellectual landscape filtered through the symbolic elements mainstream politicians are most willing to coopt. There is no real consensus-making force to create the kind of rigorous standardization you seem to be hinting at, which to a certain degree has probably never been achieved in any context. And ultimately, the problems you adumbrate are the ones we should prefer to have to the ones we do have. No one can afford to wait upon the auspicious advent of the Ultimate Final Solution to X.

I am not asking for the the ultimate solution, but that there is a decent attempt to verify that it is an actual solution.



Why are the failures of state and society to be loaded onto the most marginal, since that's logically what you're pointing to?

Now you seem to be taking a perspective of ethics. What interests me is causality. The thesis is this more or less this: add a typical Western society and mass migration of people from specific non-Western cultures, and you likely get a bad outcome.

It's like chemistry: you don't say that the flammable material or the flame is to blame for the combustion that follows; that's just the result that you get when you put the two near each other.



I'm not aware of any comprehensive national program to uplift minorities in the West, though there might have been something vaguely gesturing at that in the big Communist countries, PRC and USSR

I imagine that in the case of the Soviet Union there would have been a degree of ethnic segregation involved, cf. the ethnic composition of the countries that broke free and the current republics in the Russian Federation.


One of the most powerful in the long-term, at least in terms that aren't strictly material, is school integration (the material component is indirect, in the upgraded services and education non-whites experience). The practical difficulty with this policy is that it is enormously unpopular with white parents, even liberal ones, who in extremity have, and have had, a strong tendency to relocate to evade integration. This is a problem with white parents!

I haven't studied closely what causes ethnic segregation in Europe, but in a 'free' country, people move as they see fit; parents do what they think is best for their children. That's part of the rules of the reality that you are dealing with. If you cannot convince people to break this behaviour, then this particular battle will never be won, and it will not be something you can rely on to advance other goals.

I would say though that those who believe in multiethnic societies and agree with the immigration policy in Europe should be the first to volunteer to stay behind, or move in, and blend. You certainly should not expect people who disagree with the policy to do so, and if you cannot get enough supporters of the policy to do this, that would tell you something.


It's just, you're worried about the nebulous possibility that non-ethnic Swedes will soon both gain enough social power and ethnic animosity toward ethnic Swedes (but not whites in general?) as to distinctly marginalize ethnic Swedes [...] The former future remains a fever dream, while the latter has a definite and ongoing continuation.

The possibility isn't very nebulous, it's basic math combined with observations of common human behaviour.

What percentage of the population in Sweden, and most other European countries, were Muslims just a few decades ago? Close to 0. Now it might be over 8 (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/29/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/) in Sweden, and if you add in other non-Muslim groups that might be relevant here, you are presumably somewhere above 10%. So from 0% to over 10% in a matter of decades, and no guarantee that the trend is going to stop or reverse anytime soon. Tipping 50% is not very unrealistic, and inter-ethnic violence is commonly found in human societies.

It is not a 'fever dream', it is an outcome of significant probability unless the immigration policy is radically changed, which is precisely what I am campaigning for.


but not very worried about the racism and disadvantages faced by those populations up through the present.

Those issues would not have existed if they or their ancestors had not migrated in the first place. They had their lands, full of people like themselves who would never discriminate against them on this basis. It is a problem that did not need to exist! The whole situation is just pointless.

If racism from ethnic Europeans is the among the greatest issues faced by such individuals today, migrating to the country where their ancestors migrated from would solve that important issue firmly; hardly a single ethnic European around there to bother them. The wealth they have accumulated in Europe might even be enough to propel them right into the upper middle class in their new home country.

I might be more sympathetic to small groups that may be too small or too dispersed to realistically maintain a state of their own, or in cases of ethnic persecution. But even then, the rule of thumb should be that refugees should go to the most culturally similar countries. And regardless of sympathy, at some point you will run into the limits of what is physically possible.

The picture is of course also complicated by the fact that the countries they migrate from often are rather ethnically diverse themselves, but these ethnic groups, naturally, tend to be more closely related to one another than any of them would be to an ethnic group found halfway around the globe.

Ultimately, those are the countries where most of the members of the ethnic groups in question live (or used to); scattering around globally will not strengthen their causes or resolve the issues they face.


What do you mean by "received?" The article conveys that these are legally-valid organizations that receive some sort of payment for "business" from the state, which I assume is in the context of a Swedish educational system where private schools are subsidized by the state. Am I off-base or missing something?

"from the Swedish state" was missing from the sentence. Most of the money was received in the context of education, yes.


Well, not really if one accepts that people deserve to be treated well but don't deserve to be mistreated.

Deserve to be treated well, but not to be treated to anything. At some point the favour done is greater than what could be expected or demanded - obviously dependent on the cultural and ethical framework applied. In my book, the treatment discussed here very much goes beyond what can be expected.


1. States have very limited inherent authority to traduce the external and internal movement of people, because people have a natural right not to be traduced in their movements.

Moving around the world is not that hard; settling is a different matter.


if one accepts the fundamental equality of persons then they are almost irrefutable

People don't see everyone as equal - there are some people they would invite for coffee (friends), and others they are not immediately inclined to (strangers). A similar argument shouldn't be too hard to make on a national level.

I don't think this concept of equality is compatible with humans. It might have a value as an aspiration, particularly when it comes to governance and law, and other professional settings. When taken literally or near-literally in many other contexts, I think it could quickly do more harm than good.


While "work well" is a load-bearing phrase here with indefinite meaning, I would say that in our world it will not be possible to achieve an additive effect of 'countries that solved all their problems unite to do even better'; I don't know whether it is possible or available, but for countries to improve or even maintain their existing positives and advantages, they will have to take a leap and cooperate synergistically

To me it seems like you are advocating literal bootstrapping. That a from something bad, something good should emerge. That a commission with active criminals in important roles should deliver on ending crime.

I think that all democratic countries need to do, is to survive. Dictatorships have two serious flaws in their fundament: a predisposition for popular revolts, and the transition of power. Both frequently provide the opportunity for a transition to democracy, and sooner or later, democracy is likely to stick.


Per the response to some of the previous excerpts, consider how many simultaneous and overlapping civilizational crises and upheavals we face. Inequality and oligarchy, fascism, climate change, cultural change... - to say nothing of unique national issues. No one country has the luxury of simply resolving these sequentially and then moving on to other concerns, no more than a human being has a chance of 'perfecting their own private life' before engaging with their community.

I am not arguing against continuing international co-operation.


You've been saying that for a decade, that heterogeneity creates an unacceptable level of friction, and therefore homogeneity is the top priority, but I continue to reject that as in practice both naive and immoral. The core of Reaction is not opposition to external difference but internal difference; no one is safe. And to the extent, as you would retort, Reaction is empowered by ethnic flux, this would seem to be a short-term phenomenon. Rising generations of more diverse populations appear better placed to resist Reaction. (It will be interesting to compare South Korea and Japan to Europe in 20 years now that they've opened themselves to immigration.)

Meanwhile, the US has not only elected a charlatan brazen to the point of inanity to the office of president, he also stands a realistic chance of re-election. Hungary may or may not be on the path to a dictatorship, but I don't think it can be said that it has sunk quite that low in its choice of prime minister as the US has in its choice of president.

If we revisit the US in 20-30 years time, my prediction is that the US will still be a troubled country; finding itself in a situation comparable to, or worse, than where it is today - and that it is independent of Trump losing or winning the upcoming election. Hungary, on the other hand, might be on the mend, with Orban out of the office.


As I've sometimes pointed out, no - it is exactly the failure of democracy in many places throughout the world over the past generation that should be deeply alarming to all of us in so-called "mature" democracies, because the human limitation is a universal one and manifests everywhere. The past five years should really amply demonstrate this point, don't you think, the inherent fragility of rooted institutions (that typically have only really been that rooted for 20, 50, 100 years at most)? Liberal democracy is not an achievement but a permanent struggle, a tenuous order under siege from its enemies, analogous to the fictional conflict between Jedi and Sith in surprising ways. Even though it is consistently shown that most modern humans want some level of democracy in their lives, democracy is difficult to establish, difficult to maintain, and easy to subvert.

I am not immediately aware of any modern state transitioning from democracy to dictatorship that had a relatively well-functioning democracy for more than a human lifespan.

If we take Germany as an example, and if we for the sake of the argument say that the German Empire was decently democratic by the standards of that time (which I presume it was not), then from the empire's inception in 1871 to Hitler's ascent to power in 1933, 62 years had passed.

On the other hand, if you count only from the inception of the Weimar Republic in 1918 (which might almost be equally justifiable), then only 15 years had passed. Add the fact that a united German territory or state didn't exist until the inception of the German Empire, the combination of a relatively new state (with the Weimar Republic at one point replacing the empire, to shake up things even more), the foundation for democracy in Germany was weak, and so the transition to a dictatorship became all the more probable (i.e. it didn't have to be Hitler, it could have been royalists or communists, or someone else).


What do you think of the essay I linked?

I've only skimmed it, but I see that I take issue with its fundament:


The inhabitants of a political community are more like strangers who find themselves locked in a very large room together than they are like an extended family or a voluntary association united in pursuit of a common purpose. They are not co-members of some potentially evolutionarily fundamental unit of human society, like the band or tribe of 50-500 persons. They are not what nationalists falsely claim co-nationals to be: members of some pre- or extrapolitical social whole that can make its will felt through politics, some social soul that wears the state as a body. They are not the particular subset of humanity united by allegiance to some particular political ideal, at any level of abstraction; even if most people had sufficient political knowledge and sufficiently coherent views to qualify as holding an ideal, polities contain perennial diversity of such ideals, and many political values and norms find adherents across international boundaries.

This in on a spectrum - living on the countryside is different from living in a city. In the same respect - social cohesion - living in a city of a 100 000 might also be significantly different from living in a city of 10 million. Then add in ethnicities co-residing. And the dominant culture (if any) of a country, and how it contributes to the concept of kinship in society. It's a subject worthy of a chapter itself.

When it comes to the talk about the "city of God, this is a perspective I would find equally useful at an international level, with countries as metaphorical individuals.

[Gilrandir]

Are you talking about your opinion or someone else's opinion? If it's someone else's opinion, then why are you hung up? If it's your opinion, then it matters how you would relate to a more destructive Maidan movement. Explain yourself.


You don't seem to have been reading carefully what I wrote. I spoke not of destructive or non-destructive public protests (including Maidan), but of destruction/violence aimed at the authorities vs innocent fellow citizens. In this the current BLM protests/riots differ from the ones I mentioned.



Rioters don't care who they're alienating because they rarely have a political motive in looting. As a subset relation, most rioters are probably supportive of BLM, but few BLM participants and supporters are rioters. This is unsurprising when you consider that BLM, like most mass protest movements, is not a top-down hierarchical organization but a banner and symbol people relate to. BLM can't control people around protest areas; they're not police. Here's an example of an ideological argument (https://thenewinquiry.com/in-defense-of-looting/) in favor of looting. You might be on slightly less-shaky ground if BLM organizers were trying to foment and coordinate violence.

To say it plainly, BLM is anti-riot


Then why don't BLM say openly that they have nothing to do with the riots and call to the police to stop riots even using force? Because I have an impression that if the police try to use force against rioters BLM would strongly criticize it.



Doesn't seem relevant in the context of people who don't fit that description.


It is alwasy the story with you. Whenever an unsavory fact surfaces it somehow is irrelevant.



You think protesters are an inherent threat and favor proactive organized resistance to them. It's what you're actually saying. If that's not representative of your beliefs, try communicating in a way that isn't contrary to them.


NFAC are a threat, in my view. As well as riots. As long as protest are peaceful it's fine. But since one can hardly say when protests will turn into riots, it is natural to be cautious about them.



If you care about incidental damage to businesses but don't care about racism, inequality, and oppression then your moral compass is poorly calibrated.


My compass says both are bad. You seem to be of an opinion that the damage is the price you have to willingly pay to stop racism and oppression so why go on squealing about such petty things.



BLM is anti-riot, Trump and the police are pro-riot. Make your choice.


My choice is the absence of riots. And forwarding political agenda without hurting the innocent. Putting myself into the shoes of those who suffered damage I would say that it doesn't matter how it is achieved. Whether BLM representatives reason with rioters or the police forcefully stop them - I want to feel safe and suffer no losses.


By the way, watched ALL episodes of the travel show we have discussed where the blondes toured Africa. Nowhere - NOWHERE - in Kenya, Uganda, Mozambique, Botswana and some other countries I don't remember - there happened any assaults at them. On the contrary, locals are presented as friendly people who are ready to host tourists. So definitely your conlusion that Africa was intentionally presented as a dangerous place by staging up the Johannesburg episode is fallacious. Being rasist the show would have featured such assaults at least in more locations than one.

[ReluctantSamurai]

My choice is the absence of riots.

You can say that because the color of your skin is white.

[Gilrandir]

You can say that because the color of your skin is white.

So you mean that if I were black I would enjoy rioting?

[ReluctantSamurai]

So you mean that if I were black I would enjoy rioting?

Question---do you know, or have any friends who are POC? I'm not asking this to be flippant. The answer goes to understanding why POC riot (and no, I do not condone violent protesting).

[CrossLOPER]

So you mean that if I were black I would enjoy rioting?
He means that your view of "public order" in relation to tradeoffs would be different if you were black in the US.

[Pannonian]

He means that your view of "public order" in relation to tradeoffs would be different if you were black in the US.

Eg. If you're white you'll probably see the police as the maintainers of law and order. If you're black you may well see the police as an unaccountable life-threatening force. What BLM has done is highlighted the validity of the second view.

[Gilrandir]

Question---do you know, or have any friends who are POC? I'm not asking this to be flippant. The answer goes to understanding why POC riot (and no, I do not condone violent protesting).


Eg. If you're white you'll probably see the police as the maintainers of law and order. If you're black you may well see the police as an unaccountable life-threatening force. What BLM has done is highlighted the validity of the second view.

It doesn't matter what friends I have or how black people view the police. If riot is aimed against innocent people and their property I am totally against it. If protesters have issues with authorities/police they should attack police precincts, town halls, and any other administrative buildings. Otherwise it is picking the target that can't defend itself and has nothing to do with racism or police brutality. I'm surprised that I have to explain such basics to people.

[rory_20_uk]

It doesn't matter what friends I have or how black people view the police. If riot is aimed against innocent people and their property I am totally against it. If protesters have issues with authorities/police they should attack police precincts, town halls, and any other administrative buildings. Otherwise it is picking the target that can't defend itself and has nothing to do with racism or police brutality. I'm surprised that I have to explain such basics to people.

In an ideal world where everyone acts rationally then yes... of course. Look at all the Uprisings in Eastern Europe. They certainly were not solely aimed at the apparatus of the state (although I suppose everything was indirectly owned by the state) but it was eventually these protests and uprisings that changed things.

The British left India not so much due to the peaceful protest but over the upset of the Indian Army and concerns they might not follow the orders of the British officers.

And even when protesters have no intent of damaging other people's property, others can and do join with exactly that aim in mind - be that gun toting rednecks or bog standard looters.

~:smoking:

[ReluctantSamurai]

It doesn't matter what friends I have or how black people view the police. If riot is aimed against innocent people and their property I am totally against it.

Actually, it does. For someone whose skin color is white you can grasp intellectually what POC experience, but you can never feel the pain. Reading about it is one thing, but to talk to someone who's been there and see the far away look they get in their eyes as they relate past experinces, and then then the anger that spreads across their face, is another. I doubt anyone here is condoning violence against private property and innocent people. Decades of racism and repression, combined with all the additional stress brought on by the pandemic and the resulting economy crash, can be just too much for some. The anger boils over and it's easier to lash out then to kneel and pray.


I'm surprised that I have to explain such basics to people.

You need to get down off of your high horse and walk a mile in a black person's shoes, to use a very old saying. To sit in your comfortable home and decry rioting and bloviate about how POC should act is simply arrogance without experience.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Humans are not entirely rational decision makers.

In a purely rational decision-making model, the rioting and destruction/violence associated with it should not factor in at all. After all, the shops and such being destroyed are local in most cases, further damaging a community that already is facing economic hardship -- one of the hardships engendering the protest/riot in the first place.

In a purely rational decision-making model, the protesters themselves would call the authorities to have them stop and arrest those who are not protesting but looting and vandalizing while they themselves remain peaceful, using appropriate civil unrest aimed strictly at government and other authorities deemed to be part of the oppression. That has probably even happened a time or two.

But emotions run high and anger makes violence seem a viable choice, police worry that intervening will make things worse or get them trapped by a mob, people assume that someone else should be taking care of it...
And yes, some folks take the excuse of a large protest to loot and pillage when they believe they will face no consequences. Often, they are correct as to pursue and stop the looters would end up including scads of legitimate protesters in police-enacted violence aimed at the looters. Rational choices are not always made.

Furthermore, on a macro level that many of the protesters might not even be able to voice, the shops etc. being looted are a PART of the overall socioeconomic system which appears to be designed to hold them back, marginalize them, and render their very lives at greater risk then some other person living two zipcodes West. If you feel that the entirety of the extent system is robbing you of your chances in life and threatening you, I would imagine it is a bit more difficult to remind yourself that, rationally, the looting and destruction will not of itself accomplish your objectives.

So is it wrong? YES. Should it be stopped? YES. Is it appropriate to line up the jackboots and impose order? Probably not, because the order imposed will only re-engender the same problem unless you want a police state forever.

[Gilrandir]

You need to get down off of your high horse and walk a mile in a black person's shoes, to use a very old saying. To sit in your comfortable home and decry rioting and bloviate about how POC should act is simply arrogance without experience.

You don't need experience, just a moral compass, to see right from wrong. As Aragorn put it, 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men.'
Whatever emotions the rioters and looters have (if it's not simple greed) they don't justify what they do - hurting the innocent. If you get a message from IRS that you still owe the state a thousand dollars and are angered, would you go setting afire your neighbors' houses? And if BLM doesn't mind what happens "under their auspices" it hurts their reputation of justice-seekers.

[Gilrandir]

Humans are not entirely rational decision makers.

In a purely rational decision-making model, the rioting and destruction/violence associated with it should not factor in at all. After all, the shops and such being destroyed are local in most cases, further damaging a community that already is facing economic hardship -- one of the hardships engendering the protest/riot in the first place.

In a purely rational decision-making model, the protesters themselves would call the authorities to have them stop and arrest those who are not protesting but looting and vandalizing while they themselves remain peaceful, using appropriate civil unrest aimed strictly at government and other authorities deemed to be part of the oppression. That has probably even happened a time or two.

But emotions run high and anger makes violence seem a viable choice, police worry that intervening will make things worse or get them trapped by a mob, people assume that someone else should be taking care of it...
And yes, some folks take the excuse of a large protest to loot and pillage when they believe they will face no consequences. Often, they are correct as to pursue and stop the looters would end up including scads of legitimate protesters in police-enacted violence aimed at the looters. Rational choices are not always made.

Furthermore, on a macro level that many of the protesters might not even be able to voice, the shops etc. being looted are a PART of the overall socioeconomic system which appears to be designed to hold them back, marginalize them, and render their very lives at greater risk then some other person living two zipcodes West. If you feel that the entirety of the extent system is robbing you of your chances in life and threatening you, I would imagine it is a bit more difficult to remind yourself that, rationally, the looting and destruction will not of itself accomplish your objectives.

So is it wrong? YES. Should it be stopped? YES. Is it appropriate to line up the jackboots and impose order? Probably not, because the order imposed will only re-engender the same problem unless you want a police state forever.

This is all very judicious, but non-violent (or at least, those that don't target thrid party agents) protests aren't that rare now or in the past. I gave a whole list of examples, and in the USA MLK succeeded in it. I don't believe the grudge of BLM today is greater than the protesters of the 1960s, or other political movements throughout the world.

[ReluctantSamurai]

And if BLM doesn't mind what happens "under their auspices" it hurts their reputation of justice-seekers.

You do realize the the vast majority of BLM protests are peaceful---by a wide margin. Of course those get little to no media coverage because it's muuuuch better for ratings to see protesters framed against a backdrop of burning buildings. Protesters tried to intervene in Kenosha, and two died as a result. Of course scenes like these go completely under the radar:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/30/us/clean-up-protests-trnd/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-52964509

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/george-floyd-protests-cleanup.html

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katebubacz/photos-protests-cleanup-police-brutality-george-floyd

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/minneapolis-volunteers-clean-streets-floyd-protests-200601193014397.html

Then of course, not all the rioters are part of the BLM movement:

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/


But while the White House beat the drum for a crackdown on a leaderless movement on the left, law enforcement offices across the country were sharing detailed reports of far-right extremists seeking to attack the protesters and police during the country’s historic demonstrations, a trove of newly leaked documents reveals.

[...] the impulse to paint both sides of the political spectrum with the same brush, despite the fact that only the far right is actively killing people, is among the most dangerous features of modern American law enforcement. In his review of the documents produced in response to the recent protests, German said purported “threats” from antifa were routinely overblown, often framed vandalism as terrorism and were typically absent of concrete evidence of serious criminal activity.

Yet the leaked materials show that on May 29, two days before Trump tweeted that antifa would be labeled a terrorist organization and Barr issued his DOJ statement, the president’s own DHS analysts issued an open source intelligence report detailing how a white supremacist channel on Telegram, an encrypted messaging service, was encouraging followers to capitalize on the unrest by targeting the police with Molotov cocktails and firearms.

While a variety of groups had been linked to the unrest, the FBI noted that “much of the violence and vandalism is perpetrated by opportunistic, individual actors acting without specific direction.” Nonetheless, the bureau would “continue to aggressively … seek to corroborate whether or not there is in fact an organized effort to incite violence by either known criminal groups or domestic violent extremists,” which apparently included running down “uncorroborated intelligence about alleged participation of Venezuelan and Nicaraguan socialist groups.”

“This is a case where there is a long casualty list carried out by the white power movement, which has declared war against the country,” she said. “And there is, I think, a quite localized social movement of people who oppose it, but who have not attacked civilians, who have not attacked infrastructure, who have not attempted to overthrow the country.”

Of course there are BLM protesters who promote violence and rioting, but they are far outnumbered by what the radical right-wingers are doing.

The case of these two dudes happened two days ago:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwi/pr/two-missouri-men-charged-firearms-offenses


As alleged in the criminal complaint, on September 1, 2020, the Kenosha Police Department advised FBI that a law enforcement agency in Iowa had received a tip that Karmo and an unidentified male were in possession of firearms and traveling from Missouri to Kenosha, Wisconsin. FBI agents subsequently located and detained Karmo and Smith at a hotel in Pleasant Prairie, which is located near Kenosha. After receiving consent to search Karmo and Smith’s vehicle and hotel room, FBI agents recovered an Armory AR-15 assault rifle, a Mossberg 500 AB 12-Gauge shotgun, two handguns, a silencer, ammunition, body armor, a drone, and other materials. Karmo has prior felony convictions. Smith has a prior misdemeanor domestic battery conviction and acknowledged regular drug use. Consequently, both Karmo and Smith were prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition on September 1, 2020.


You don't need experience, just a moral compass, to see right from wrong.

You are beating a dead horse there. Noone is claiming rioting is right...it's not. But you do need experience to understand why protests can become violent, and in understanding the why, you can try to address the causes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is all very judicious, but non-violent (or at least, those that don't target thrid party agents) protests aren't that rare now or in the past. I gave a whole list of examples, and in the USA MLK succeeded in it. I don't believe the grudge of BLM today is greater than the protesters of the 1960s, or other political movements throughout the world.

It is not greater, it is a continuance.

[Gilrandir]

But you do need experience to understand why protests can become violent, and in understanding the why, you can try to address the causes.

My experience tells me that protests CAN be held without targeting the innocent, and I gave multiple examples where they were and are like that. I don't buy the argument that the current ones in the USA are somehow unique so one should condone rioting as a natural part of them.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I don't buy the argument that the current ones in the USA are somehow unique so one should condone rioting as a natural part of them.

Don't recall anyone saying riots in the US are 'unique'. Tone deaf to the POC experience, I guess:shrug: I don't condone rioting or hurting innocent people, and neither do the vast majority of BLM supporters. You have a bone to pick with BLM, so go ahead and gnaw at it.

~:wave:

[Gilrandir]

Don't recall anyone saying riots in the US are 'unique'. Tone deaf to the POC experience, I guess:shrug: I don't condone rioting or hurting innocent people, and neither do the vast majority of BLM supporters. You have a bone to pick with BLM, so go ahead and gnaw at it.

~:wave:

You vehemently defend BLM and when I upbraid them for not disowning rioters, you send me to argue with abstract them. A very convenient and consistent position like:
- They are good guys!
- But they don't say they have nothing to do with the bad guys!
- Go and tell them that! But they are good guys!

[Montmorency]

Years ago, in the early days of BLM, I used to think that at least American police were much less corrupt in ways petty or grand than in some other countries.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7gxa4/pba-card-police-courtesy-cards

On the LASD, one of the world's largest police departments and one of the major police force's for the Los Angeles area, being overrun with criminal gangs (not that I want to make too much of a distinction between overrun by criminal gangs and being a criminal gang (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEhjFKunNW0) in itself).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/l-a-county-sheriffs-department-has-a-gang-problem.html


I found this bit remarkable from one older summary of events surrounding the Rittenhouse incident in Kenosha:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/clarissajanlim/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-charges-criminal-complaint


Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth could not explain in a press conference Wednesday why police did not detain Rittenhouse then, saying officers have "incredible tunnel vision" in those situations because of the noise.

What's amusing is that tunnel vision or hearing (I forget the term) during action is a real phenomenon, but not one police officers ever seem to accommodate in the people they confront. And of course, it should be noted that the police on the scene were just parked around or slowly cruising in armored vehicles in a calm spot, surrounded by massive backup. So if we can imagine police in those conditions were having an extreme physiological response, what must it be like for a normal human surrounded by a contingent of screaming, hulking, armed police?

In what is surely a very swell development, the feds have killed Reinoehl (suspect/confessor in the killing of the militiaman in Portland) while moving in to arrest him. Apparently no body cams.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/portland-protest-suspected-killer/index.html
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/state/washington/article245487235.html



You don't seem to have been reading carefully what I wrote. I spoke not of destructive or non-destructive public protests (including Maidan), but of destruction/violence aimed at the authorities vs innocent fellow citizens. In this the current BLM protests/riots differ from the ones I mentioned.

So why didn't you answer when I asked about this with regard to Maidan? Did you support the removal of the Yanukovych government? If so, you would no longer have endorsed that objective had there been, to your knowledge, any private property damage? If not, why not? If so, why is a revolutionary overthrow of government without apparent property damage more legitimate than a protest against police abuse with any such damage?


Then why don't BLM say openly that they have nothing to do with the riots and call to the police to stop riots even using force? Because I have an impression that if the police try to use force against rioters BLM would strongly criticize it.

BLM is not a centralized organization, but you can look up any number of its member-activists disclaiming rioting and looting. Others might have tactical disagreements. At any rate, even with total unity of mind it would be impossible for a few hundred organizers to regulate 20 million protesters.

Why would someone supporting BLM want police to "use force" to stop rioters? Leaving aside that rioting can best be prevented without force, leaving aside that it is generally unacceptable to apply violence to persons to prevent violence to inert objects, they don't trust the police!! And for good reason, as you should grasp by now. Why would they invite police violence in the name of appeasing the least-sympathetic whites? I mean wow, you don't accept that black people could self-organize to stop the police with force, yet those efforts would be more socially-productive.


It is alwasy the story with you. Whenever an unsavory fact surfaces it somehow is irrelevant.

Maybe because it isn't, as I am constantly left to take the time to explain. It's annoying that basically every time you decline to defend your position, as though you don't feel the need to. I reasonably get the sense don't care about black lives under any circumstances and wish they would stop making a fuss, but why should someone respect that? It's not self-evident.


NFAC are a threat, in my view.

Why? A threat to whom? I would rather take my chances among NFAC than among the Azov Battalion (who would certainly be the type to be brutalizing American protesters).


But since one can hardly say when protests will turn into riots, it is natural to be cautious about them.

Seems to be fairly predictable. When police attack or surround protesters, rioting is likely. When you see a loose group assembled in an otherwise-deserted area off the main streets, rioting is likely. If you see geared or heavily disguised people capering at night, rioting is likely. Caution is a function of situational awareness on the scene.


My compass says both are bad.

Your words don't comport with your compass. You have never deigned to criticize racism in these pages, though you have strenuously denied or diminished it as a problem.

Let's submit arguendo that BLM protests are 'overrun' with violent criminals. In light of the fact that police institutions across the country are themselves overrun with violent criminals, and your ostensible moral compass that rejects both, and emphasizing that all else being equal a single criminal among the government executive is considerably more damaging to society than a private citizen, how could an orientation towards condemning the former while shielding the latter be counted as anything other than a betrayal of the postulated moral compass?

And that's all in the most nightmarish scenario of BLM. The disparate consideration becomes even less defensible against the reality.


You seem to be of an opinion that the damage is the price you have to willingly pay to stop racism and oppression so why go on squealing about such petty things.

Damage is the price black people pay living in a racist society. Damage is the price a racist society pays for refusing to reform itself. These are linked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HnDONDvJVE

But you are at best indifferent to the latter whereas you are willing to use force at the hint of the former. Example 101 of where your consideration lies. Aspire to heal and prevent damage instead of framing a zero-sum struggle.


My choice is the absence of riots.

"No justice, no peace" is an old observation. In what sense is your choice - What exactly are you choosing that is available to choose? Can I choose to have superpowers or to be king of the world? - the absence of riots at all? If that were the object you would have to assess how to achieve the status of the absence of riots over baldly asserting its favorability.


And forwarding political agenda without hurting the innocent.

No political agenda has ever advanced without a cost, and yet your implicit standard is that the status quo that hurts innocents must always remain extant in case the effort to change it chances to hurt innocents. It's perverted in the Kafkian way, and furthermore it's spurious garbage that no one believes. If you believed such a platitude as "forwarding a political agenda without hurting the innocent" you would have to condemn Ukraine's secession from the USSR for its disruptiveness. Even worse, it could be used to argue that it would have been better for African-Americans to remain enslaved in perpetuity rather than generate a scenario in which someone got hurt (beyond the daily slings of bondage) in the process of emancipation. It renders unimportant the abuses of the most powerful, while inflating those of the least powerful. In reality what everyone attempts to do is apply their values to a given situation, assess the causalities, and weigh costs and benefits. What do you propose be done about the government hurting the innocent? If the answer is nothing, then it's just that you disagree with this specific political agenda at its root, which disagreement you would then have to justify.

I prefer to achieve the most benefit and least harm, and one auspiciously reinforces the other here. You cannot claim to want innocents preserved if you advocate for things that indisputably harm innocents, it's just an obvious inconsistency (or fig leaf). It's like one declaring in favor of Trump over Biden because if Biden is elected, someone somewhere could die as a result. Or, more to the topic, like when 19th century white supremacists argued that 'the black race' was naturally indisposed to freedom and self-governance and so had to be controlled for their own good, yet some of the same people - later on, post-emancipation - argued that investment in black rights or material status was illegitimate as an usurpation of black freedom.


Putting myself into the shoes of those who suffered damage I would say that it doesn't matter how it is achieved. Whether BLM representatives reason with rioters or the police forcefully stop them - I want to feel safe and suffer no losses.

Try putting yourself in the shoes of black people, who might also want to feel safe and suffer no losses. Your display of total disregard of the validity of Black grievances, in its lack of imagination, is like the mirror image of the philosophy of the NFAC people. They might say the same thing as the quoted verbatim from their perspective, with the adjustment of "Whether BLM representatives reason with rioters or the police forcefully stop them" to "Whether whites reform themselves or the government accepts separatism." Meanwhile, I note, they're still suffering for their innate traits, while from your keyboard you are - not.

Please rank the following in order of your preference as potential means to stopping or preventing rioting, with the grant that "it doesn't matter how it is achieved":

*Repeal and replace police
*Ethnic cleansing
*Wait for energies to dissipate
*$1 trillion in reparations


By the way, watched ALL episodes of the travel show we have discussed where the blondes toured Africa. Nowhere - NOWHERE - in Kenya, Uganda, Mozambique, Botswana and some other countries I don't remember - there happened any assaults at them. On the contrary, locals are presented as friendly people who are ready to host tourists. So definitely your conlusion that Africa was intentionally presented as a dangerous place by staging up the Johannesburg episode is fallacious. Being rasist the show would have featured such assaults at least in more locations than one.

Totally illogical, here and in abstract toward any application. Refer to the description of the start of the episode for its racist presentation and priming. The altercation was staged (not to say that spontaneous events are otherwise unscripted in reality TV). What happens in the rest of the show is not only irrelevant to the one episode, it is an absurd standard to establish that every episode would have to have the same racist content for that content to be racist in a single episode, just as we could reject the suggestion that a Klan lyncher cannot be racist on account of all the days he doesn't go about lynching. Ultimately it was you who tried to use the video as evidence for your insistence on African criminality. You did that. Not the show, you.


This is all very judicious, but non-violent (or at least, those that don't target thrid party agents) protests aren't that rare now or in the past. I gave a whole list of examples, and in the USA MLK succeeded in it. I don't believe the grudge of BLM today is greater than the protesters of the 1960s, or other political movements throughout the world.

You don't know much about MLK or the civil rights movement. Which is fine given that you're not American, but you should know that your glib designation of priorities goes against everything King stood for. He saw your sort of white as one of the foremost hindrances to black advancement. That is why, in his time, MLK had marginally more white approval than abolishing police does now.
http://gsjhr.ms.ds.iscte.pt/2017-18/violence%20Civil%20Rights.pdf
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315023403/chapters/10.4324/9781315023403-14

The 1960s civil rights era was much more violent than this one, and in contrast with the present many of its most prominent leaders were quite famous for advocating violence, separatism, or militant self-organization.


My experience tells me that protests CAN be held without targeting the innocent,

And so they are! But if you're returning to demanding a perfectly-domesticate mass movement, let it be known that this rhetoric is malicious or hostile 100% of the time as no examples of such movements exist at scale, nor could they.


Here's what it comes down to. Do you accept that racism is pervasive and bad? Do you accept that police, for example, need systemic and systematic reform? If all that is agreeable, then the nature of the conflict is much narrowed. But there hasn't been much indication that these are shared premises. When black people and allies demand accountability for the violent criminality of the police, I watched you wave the substance aside and emphasize your offense at the aesthetics of the movement. When there's any private property destruction in the course of public mobilization, you accord it full salience on the other hand. When, in all this, you needlessly set the absence of rioting and the presence of activism against each other as though incompatible, you should perceive how you appear to reveal your priority to be the suppression of civil rights. Instead of asking the question of how to secure justice for everyone, you've asked us to accept that the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier a single whole window is worth more than any depth or quantity of human suffering. That is, you invite a dilemma that is unsound in its construction, yet independent of truth-value the imbalance on your terms is so evident that one ought to interrogate themselves as to how they produced it.


Whatever emotions the rioters and looters have (if it's not simple greed) they don't justify what they do

Bottom line: Can you or can you not maintain that thought while affirming the need for sociopolitical change in the direction heralded by B. Not once in this thread have I asked you to uphold militant tactics, but I do expect a baseline on problems and solutions. If you can't meet that low level of regard, then you make yourself an obstacle to justice and the reference point of those who do demand militant direct action and thereby deny everyone's stated interests in reality, including your own. Tell me that black lives aren't worth less than others and that something should be done to realize that, and I can see to cosigning a condemnation of rioting.




Question---do you know, or have any friends who are POC? I'm not asking this to be flippant. The answer goes to understanding why POC riot (and no, I do not condone violent protesting).

For the record - though it's impossible to compile a detailed breakdown, arrest records and mobile videos are some support for the observation - plenty of white people are included among looters. I doubt they're all or mostly ideological (anarchists), but it is whatever it is.



I predict Gil keeps on railing that chicken, but all in all he is at least not much worse on this issue than the median white, as a conversation I recently spectated serves to remind us. Some highlights:

1. The scene (previously embedded in thread) in National Lampoon's Vacation where the family drives into the ghetto and gets their hubcaps lifted by hostile natives is true life and an example of why it is dangerous to go anywhere near black people.
2. Democrats won't win the election because Trump has bikers and other people with guns on his side.
3. The American nation is suicidal ("kamikaze") for empowering non-whites.
4. Young people today are too readily exposed to people of different races, which allows them to see each other as not bad people and increases white sympathy for and awareness of the inequalities confronting black Americans. This is harmful brainwashing.
5. Actually no, no one genuinely feels anything for black lives because blacks are trash. (Incidentally, South Asians are dirty cockroaches who should be sterilized.)

It's hard to match the open Nazi depravity of that sort of value system. However, the same fixated belief in widespread riots is present as here, and it clearly has a pernicious influence. Such as in the shared anxiety about rioters traveling about to target YOUR neighborhood and make YOU unsafe, which just doesn't happen (meanwhile, violent right-wing agitators are constantly invading city streets from their suburbs, exurbs, and rural holdings).

[Gilrandir]

Years ago, in the early days of BLM, I used to think that at least American police were much less corrupt in ways petty or grand than in some other countries.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7gxa4/pba-card-police-courtesy-cards

On the LASD, one of the world's largest police departments and one of the major police force's for the Los Angeles area, being overrun with criminal gangs (not that I want to make too much of a distinction between overrun by criminal gangs and being a criminal gang (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEhjFKunNW0) in itself).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/l-a-county-sheriffs-department-has-a-gang-problem.html


I found this bit remarkable from one older summary of events surrounding the Rittenhouse incident in Kenosha:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/clarissajanlim/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-charges-criminal-complaint



What's amusing is that tunnel vision or hearing (I forget the term) during action is a real phenomenon, but not one police officers ever seem to accommodate in the people they confront. And of course, it should be noted that the police on the scene were just parked around or slowly cruising in armored vehicles in a calm spot, surrounded by massive backup. So if we can imagine police in those conditions were having an extreme physiological response, what must it be like for a normal human surrounded by a contingent of screaming, hulking, armed police?

In what is surely a very swell development, the feds have killed Reinoehl (suspect/confessor in the killing of the militiaman in Portland) while moving in to arrest him. Apparently no body cams.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/portland-protest-suspected-killer/index.html
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/state/washington/article245487235.html




So why didn't you answer when I asked about this with regard to Maidan? Did you support the removal of the Yanukovych government? If so, you would no longer have endorsed that objective had there been, to your knowledge, any private property damage? If not, why not? If so, why is a revolutionary overthrow of government without apparent property damage more legitimate than a protest against police abuse with any such damage?



BLM is not a centralized organization, but you can look up any number of its member-activists disclaiming rioting and looting. Others might have tactical disagreements. At any rate, even with total unity of mind it would be impossible for a few hundred organizers to regulate 20 million protesters.

Why would someone supporting BLM want police to "use force" to stop rioters? Leaving aside that rioting can best be prevented without force, leaving aside that it is generally unacceptable to apply violence to persons to prevent violence to inert objects, they don't trust the police!! And for good reason, as you should grasp by now. Why would they invite police violence in the name of appeasing the least-sympathetic whites? I mean wow, you don't accept that black people could self-organize to stop the police with force, yet those efforts would be more socially-productive.



Maybe because it isn't, as I am constantly left to take the time to explain. It's annoying that basically every time you decline to defend your position, as though you don't feel the need to. I reasonably get the sense don't care about black lives under any circumstances and wish they would stop making a fuss, but why should someone respect that? It's not self-evident.



Why? A threat to whom? I would rather take my chances among NFAC than among the Azov Battalion (who would certainly be the type to be brutalizing American protesters).



Seems to be fairly predictable. When police attack or surround protesters, rioting is likely. When you see a loose group assembled in an otherwise-deserted area off the main streets, rioting is likely. If you see geared or heavily disguised people capering at night, rioting is likely. Caution is a function of situational awareness on the scene.



Your words don't comport with your compass. You have never deigned to criticize racism in these pages, though you have strenuously denied or diminished it as a problem.

Let's submit arguendo that BLM protests are 'overrun' with violent criminals. In light of the fact that police institutions across the country are themselves overrun with violent criminals, and your ostensible moral compass that rejects both, and emphasizing that all else being equal a single criminal among the government executive is considerably more damaging to society than a private citizen, how could an orientation towards condemning the former while shielding the latter be counted as anything other than a betrayal of the postulated moral compass?

And that's all in the most nightmarish scenario of BLM. The disparate consideration becomes even less defensible against the reality.



Damage is the price black people pay living in a racist society. Damage is the price a racist society pays for refusing to reform itself. These are linked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HnDONDvJVE

But you are at best indifferent to the latter whereas you are willing to use force at the hint of the former. Example 101 of where your consideration lies. Aspire to heal and prevent damage instead of framing a zero-sum struggle.



"No justice, no peace" is an old observation. In what sense is your choice - What exactly are you choosing that is available to choose? Can I choose to have superpowers or to be king of the world? - the absence of riots at all? If that were the object you would have to assess how to achieve the status of the absence of riots over baldly asserting its favorability.



No political agenda has ever advanced without a cost, and yet your implicit standard is that the status quo that hurts innocents must always remain extant in case the effort to change it chances to hurt innocents. It's perverted in the Kafkian way, and furthermore it's spurious garbage that no one believes. If you believed such a platitude as "forwarding a political agenda without hurting the innocent" you would have to condemn Ukraine's secession from the USSR for its disruptiveness. Even worse, it could be used to argue that it would have been better for African-Americans to remain enslaved in perpetuity rather than generate a scenario in which someone got hurt (beyond the daily slings of bondage) in the process of emancipation. It renders unimportant the abuses of the most powerful, while inflating those of the least powerful. In reality what everyone attempts to do is apply their values to a given situation, assess the causalities, and weigh costs and benefits. What do you propose be done about the government hurting the innocent? If the answer is nothing, then it's just that you disagree with this specific political agenda at its root, which disagreement you would then have to justify.

I prefer to achieve the most benefit and least harm, and one auspiciously reinforces the other here. You cannot claim to want innocents preserved if you advocate for things that indisputably harm innocents, it's just an obvious inconsistency (or fig leaf). It's like one declaring in favor of Trump over Biden because if Biden is elected, someone somewhere could die as a result. Or, more to the topic, like when 19th century white supremacists argued that 'the black race' was naturally indisposed to freedom and self-governance and so had to be controlled for their own good, yet some of the same people - later on, post-emancipation - argued that investment in black rights or material status was illegitimate as an usurpation of black freedom.



Try putting yourself in the shoes of black people, who might also want to feel safe and suffer no losses. Your display of total disregard of the validity of Black grievances, in its lack of imagination, is like the mirror image of the philosophy of the NFAC people. They might say the same thing as the quoted verbatim from their perspective, with the adjustment of "Whether BLM representatives reason with rioters or the police forcefully stop them" to "Whether whites reform themselves or the government accepts separatism." Meanwhile, I note, they're still suffering for their innate traits, while from your keyboard you are - not.

Please rank the following in order of your preference as potential means to stopping or preventing rioting, with the grant that "it doesn't matter how it is achieved":

*Repeal and replace police
*Ethnic cleansing
*Wait for energies to dissipate
*$1 trillion in reparations



Totally illogical, here and in abstract toward any application. Refer to the description of the start of the episode for its racist presentation and priming. The altercation was staged (not to say that spontaneous events are otherwise unscripted in reality TV). What happens in the rest of the show is not only irrelevant to the one episode, it is an absurd standard to establish that every episode would have to have the same racist content for that content to be racist in a single episode, just as we could reject the suggestion that a Klan lyncher cannot be racist on account of all the days he doesn't go about lynching. Ultimately it was you who tried to use the video as evidence for your insistence on African criminality. You did that. Not the show, you.



You don't know much about MLK or the civil rights movement. Which is fine given that you're not American, but you should know that your glib designation of priorities goes against everything King stood for. He saw your sort of white as one of the foremost hindrances to black advancement. That is why, in his time, MLK had marginally more white approval than abolishing police does now.
http://gsjhr.ms.ds.iscte.pt/2017-18/violence%20Civil%20Rights.pdf
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315023403/chapters/10.4324/9781315023403-14

The 1960s civil rights era was much more violent than this one, and in contrast with the present many of its most prominent leaders were quite famous for advocating violence, separatism, or militant self-organization.



And so they are! But if you're returning to demanding a perfectly-domesticate mass movement, let it be known that this rhetoric is malicious or hostile 100% of the time as no examples of such movements exist at scale, nor could they.


Here's what it comes down to. Do you accept that racism is pervasive and bad? Do you accept that police, for example, need systemic and systematic reform? If all that is agreeable, then the nature of the conflict is much narrowed. But there hasn't been much indication that these are shared premises. When black people and allies demand accountability for the violent criminality of the police, I watched you wave the substance aside and emphasize your offense at the aesthetics of the movement. When there's any private property destruction in the course of public mobilization, you accord it full salience on the other hand. When, in all this, you needlessly set the absence of rioting and the presence of activism against each other as though incompatible, you should perceive how you appear to reveal your priority to be the suppression of civil rights. Instead of asking the question of how to secure justice for everyone, you've asked us to accept that the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier a single whole window is worth more than any depth or quantity of human suffering. That is, you invite a dilemma that is unsound in its construction, yet independent of truth-value the imbalance on your terms is so evident that one ought to interrogate themselves as to how they produced it.



Bottom line: Can you or can you not maintain that thought while affirming the need for sociopolitical change in the direction heralded by B. Not once in this thread have I asked you to uphold militant tactics, but I do expect a baseline on problems and solutions. If you can't meet that low level of regard, then you make yourself an obstacle to justice and the reference point of those who do demand militant direct action and thereby deny everyone's stated interests in reality, including your own. Tell me that black lives aren't worth less than others and that something should be done to realize that, and I can see to cosigning a condemnation of rioting.





For the record - though it's impossible to compile a detailed breakdown, arrest records and mobile videos are some support for the observation - plenty of white people are included among looters. I doubt they're all or mostly ideological (anarchists), but it is whatever it is.



Spent a couple of days writing "that chicken" (Montmorency 2020, p. 13498)?

My final words:
1. Racism is bad (apparently, you want every post of mine to start with these words because your every post says I NEVER told that - which is a lie).
2. Racism is not pervasive.
3. Demanding justice protesters mustn't deal out injustice.
4. If protesters must attack someboby, it should be police stations and administrative buildings. Fight the real perpetrators, not your neighbors.
5. BLM must explicitly condemn riots without any "tactical disagreements".
6. NFAC is a threat because they want a part of the country to be forcibly turned into a separate monoracial state. If they are so brave with their guns, shoot at the police if this is the root of the problem.
7. When Ukraine separated from the USSR not a single window was smashed.
8. Own up to the fact that your stance may not be always right.
9. Learn to read carefully what I wrote instead of reiterating your ideas of what I must be thinking.

[Montmorency]

Yep, it turns out the feds murdered Reinoehl as retaliation.
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1304086151842664448

Goddamn Horst Wessel affair playing out in days rather than years - as expected of the 21st century.



Spent a couple of days writing "that chicken" (Montmorency 2020, p. 13498)?

My final words:
1. Racism is bad (apparently, you want every post of mine to start with these words because your every post says I NEVER told that - which is a lie).
2. Racism is not pervasive.
3. Demanding justice protesters mustn't deal out injustice.
4. If protesters must attack someboby, it should be police stations and administrative buildings. Fight the real perpetrators, not your neighbors.
5. BLM must explicitly condemn riots without any "tactical disagreements".
6. NFAC is a threat because they want a part of the country to be forcibly turned into a separate monoracial state. If they are so brave with their guns, shoot at the police if this is the root of the problem.
7. When Ukraine separated from the USSR not a single window was smashed.
8. Own up to the fact that your stance may not be always right.
9. Learn to read carefully what I wrote instead of reiterating your ideas of what I must be thinking.

An obstinate and self-contradictory interlocutor is very wearisome to engage with. It takes effort to muster a measure of grace and restraint in responding to your comments.

I don't believe you believe racism is bad, since you reject so many opportunities in this thread to concretely condemn it. That you don't accept that it is pervasive just goes to show...

I agree that 'collateral damage' is undesirable. I never asked you to embrace it. What I have consistently objected to in this thread is your automatic dismissal of racism and the experiences of non-whites in practice (and not just racism, criminal cops hurt us all in the end) in contrast to your instant plaintive concern for someone else's property a world away. The reality is that it's genuinely sad when someone's home or livelihood is unaccountably damaged. But the opinion of someone who wrongly frames that in opposition to a social movement or a social issue, as though it's an exclusive choice between them, and as though the objectives of reform or the underlying problems they reflect are no longer operative - that person's opinion simply doesn't matter because they don't care about justice or about causality. Their colors are plain.

The NFAC ideology does not demonstrate the dangerousness of the organization, which is the logical step you overlook. NFAC has no power to influence anything, nor any friends in power. Same as above, your focus on this relative triviality alongside dismissal of the actual, demonstrable, present and ongoing threats facing the country exposes fatally compromised priorities.

Ukrainian secession and Soviet dissolution ruined thousands, if not millions, of lives. But that's not reason enough to oppose it.

You have been overwhelmingly factually wrong throughout this thread, in some shocking and unanticipated ways. You've contradicted yourself in your declarations of personal sentiment multiple times. I can't take you seriously when you recommend epistemic humility.

Think more carefully about what your positions are and what you write about them. I do understand you, I just reproach you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lTlMY2Pmxc




I am not asking for the the ultimate solution, but that there is a decent attempt to verify that it is an actual solution.

So what are you asking for in practical terms, and to whom are you directing it? We could apply the desire for a comprehensive long-term plan on the course of human development in any number of domains, and maybe it would be right to begin demanding such, but you wouldn't really expect a civic, governmental, or business leader to have one one hand. What comes after the climate transition? What sort of relationship should civilization have to interstellar travel? I'm sure someone has thought about it, but it's not a question that should really hinder us in taking steps in the present. Find answers to academic subjects in academic literature.


Now you seem to be taking a perspective of ethics. What interests me is causality. The thesis is this more or less this: add a typical Western society and mass migration of people from specific non-Western cultures, and you likely get a bad outcome.


That's not clear at all, though of course "bad outcome" is vague. Moreover, such an assertion - with all attendant implications - needs to be justified overwhelmingly, not the other way around. Ultimately the ethics of the situation are tied to a high degree with the perceived causalities, though alarmists are put in a bind by the demonstrable utilitarian fact that immigrants from poorer to richer countries tend to get better off than they were/would have been.


I imagine that in the case of the Soviet Union there would have been a degree of ethnic segregation involved, cf. the ethnic composition of the countries that broke free and the current republics in the Russian Federation.

It's not surprising that the Soviet model relied on ethnic-Russian colonization throughout the regions, but there was also an =goal - ideological or otherwise - of promoting cultural exchange and labor migration among the lesser and greater minority groups (and not just to the extent that Stalin deported a lot of ethnic groups to Siberia or Central Asia.) The dynamics would naturally be different under an authoritarian Russian-supremacist regime compared to a hypothetical pluralist democracy, if that's where you're heading. It should be noted that most of the traditional sub-national ethnic groups in Russia itself are simply few in number, other than Tatars. Today, Russia relies on - often seasonal - labor migration of millions of Kazakhs and other Central Asians, but to my knowledge there's otherwise not many great reasons or incentives for non-Russian populations as populations to move about into Russia or among the Eastern European countries today, especially on a permanent basis. I could be wrong.


I haven't studied closely what causes ethnic segregation in Europe, but in a 'free' country, people move as they see fit; parents do what they think is best for their children. That's part of the rules of the reality that you are dealing with. If you cannot convince people to break this behaviour, then this particular battle will never be won, and it will not be something you can rely on to advance other goals.

I would say though that those who believe in multiethnic societies and agree with the immigration policy in Europe should be the first to volunteer to stay behind, or move in, and blend. You certainly should not expect people who disagree with the policy to do so, and if you cannot get enough supporters of the policy to do this, that would tell you something.

Of course it's not so simple as a matter of "freedom" and choice if one group is economically and socially disadvantaged, except in the ironic aphorism of Anatole France on the equality of the law.

It would tell us something, that there is some level of hypocrisy or inconsistency even among liberals. But in the United States, during the era of the formation of modern segregated municipalities, there were virtually no such liberals among the white population; aversion towards blacks was near-universal, and this aversion was given the tools of actualization by government support and subsidies to whites, the housing boom, the highway boom, and the proliferation of private automobiles. These days when there is hypocrisy, it manifests in the choice of where to move to (not so much the choice to move away). There is still a persistent tendency to stereotype a geographic concentration of black people (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) as a presumptively-"bad" area, independent of relevant attributes like infrastructure, amenities, crime level (a fraught analysis itself as we have seen), income level, or anything else that might influence the suitability of domicile.

Attitudes change, but slowly. The most effective known tool to breaking these behavioral patterns, as far as I know, is enforcing the integration of schools. It stands to reason that there is a unique effect following close and extended direct exposure, in all directions, during childhood. (New York City is one of the most residentially and educationally-segregated cities in the country vis-a-vis African Americans, and my high school was overwhelmingly East Asian, so I have the relatively-unusual psychology of being more familiar with people of Asian descent as an American than with people of African descent. My sister attended a more evenly-split school in terms of the major racial categories, and I wonder if she isn't in some ways better off.)


The possibility isn't very nebulous, it's basic math combined with observations of common human behaviour.

Conflict is fine and normal; that what democracy is there for. Sectarian conflict of the sort you seem to darkly hint it is not inevitable, and offloading your quasi-probabilistic fears of a potential risk of serious conflict generations down the line onto minorities is unacceptable in my view (not that it would be acceptable the other way around). Instead of sanctifying xenophobia, let's do the work of cooperation and coexistence. Again, it's your onus to argue against that prospective causality and ethic.

More concrete limitations on your speculation about a future Sweden:

Ethnic Swedes, going by past performance in other societies, are set to retain the overwhelming share of economic, political, and cultural power even should they form less than 50% of the country at some point (itself really not likely in our lifetimes). Insofar as they do not it would be because a more equal arrangement between groups is attained, in which case the bases of serious conflict are removed.

The sources of conflict between ethnic groups are not merely qualitatively distinct, but will also reflect common tensions in the wider society (i.e. the common politics). Even in an early stage, immigrants will not be purely alien presence but will intersect with preexisting cleavages. For example, in a mapping of individual political beliefs and objectives onto the national context. It is then the individuals and subgroups, among all populations, who adopt an exclusionary agenda that disrupt the dynamic and introduce insoluble conflict.


Those issues would not have existed if they or their ancestors had not migrated in the first place. They had their lands, full of people like themselves who would never discriminate against them on this basis. It is a problem that did not need to exist! The whole situation is just pointless.

You know the bolded is simply not true and has never been true. The existence of people is the oldest and most pervasive problem of all, doesn't mean you can go Thanos on them.

Something you missed, Viking: Women are around half the population in every country. You can't segregate nations by gender (this is a surprisingly (https://knd.fandom.com/wiki/Operation:_F.U.T.U.R.E.) common premise (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6txovb) in cartoons). Sexual minorities exist in every country. Religious minorities exist in every country. Lower classes exist in every country. Reactionaries will always react. They've been doing the same shit as now throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, in all the same places. They learn nothing and remember everything. There's no appeasing them for long. At some point you just have to put them down, jetzt erst recht.

The existence of difficulties for some people as a consequence of ethnic interface cannot in itself militate for apartheid, for the construction and restriction of outsiders, whether preemptive or reactive. Not if one entertains the equality of humans at even an abstract level. Your anxiety or inconvenience does not simply negate the rights of others.


I might be more sympathetic to small groups that may be too small or too dispersed to realistically maintain a state of their own, or in cases of ethnic persecution. But even then, the rule of thumb should be that refugees should go to the most culturally similar countries. And regardless of sympathy, at some point you will run into the limits of what is physically possible.

"Physically impossible" is a strange way of describing the effects of sectarian animosity. Why is "immigrants" something that triggers physical impossibility and demands relief, but racism isn't? The burden should be on the unjust to change, and it should be our superordinate goal to facilitate that change, everywhere it manifests (which, contrary to the premise of a philosophical natural state of ethnic segregation, is everywhere in some form), because such prejudice is always harmful and injurious to all our interests.


Ultimately, those are the countries where most of the members of the ethnic groups in question live (or used to); scattering around globally will not strengthen their causes or resolve the issues they face.

First of all, why would be relevant to the question of immigration policy and obligations, and second, why would we take it for granted?

It might be that Kurds are more similar to Turks than to French people, or Tunisians to Moroccans, but there is no question that a typical Kurd or Tunisian is better off in France than in Turkey or Morocco.


In my book, the treatment discussed here very much goes beyond what can be expected.

Moving around the world is not that hard; settling is a different matter.


People don't see everyone as equal - there are some people they would invite for coffee (friends), and others they are not immediately inclined to (strangers). A similar argument shouldn't be too hard to make on a national level.

I don't think this concept of equality is compatible with humans. It might have a value as an aspiration, particularly when it comes to governance and law, and other professional settings. When taken literally or near-literally in many other contexts, I think it could quickly do more harm than good.

For foreigners of a different complexion to live among you, be afforded the opportunity to participate in the polity and society, and not be denied resources necessary for that participation is too much to ask in your view? That's a fundamental disagreement.

How you personally relate to individuals, in terms of intimacy, is categorically different from what sorts of duties humans have to each other collectively, and what sort of harms and derogations are legitimate to apply.


To me it seems like you are advocating literal bootstrapping. That a from something bad, something good should emerge. That a commission with active criminals in important roles should deliver on ending crime.

I think that all democratic countries need to do, is to survive. Dictatorships have two serious flaws in their fundament: a predisposition for popular revolts, and the transition of power. Both frequently provide the opportunity for a transition to democracy, and sooner or later, democracy is likely to stick.

Bootstrapping? I'm referring to cooperation, which is possible today. Bootstrapping might be relevant to transcending a fragmentary world order, but there isn't a dichotomy holding us back from identifying and securing goals (e.g. international labor and environmental standards). In a more limited sense of bootstrapping, an actor with the will and influence to secure such programs needs to arise and realize the possible as something to subsequently build on. (Naturally the only extant candidate is the US.)

We don't have that kind of time, and no one who lives or comes to live under violent and oppressive tyranny would likely be satisfied with the theoretical effect of long-term historical cycles. (You certainly aren't satisfied with allowing the less dire cultural growing pains to 'sort themselves out.') Don't you feel it strange, that by this implication a subject of Suharto's New Guinea should be more resolute in the face of their challenges than some European having to accept that subject as a neighbor and citizen?


I am not arguing against continuing international co-operation.

I am arguing for an unprecedented level of international cooperation, not just intergovernmental but increasingly transpolitan, as needed for the scale and universality of 21st century problems.


Meanwhile, the US has not only elected a charlatan brazen to the point of inanity to the office of president, he also stands a realistic chance of re-election. Hungary may or may not be on the path to a dictatorship, but I don't think it can be said that it has sunk quite that low in its choice of prime minister as the US has in its choice of president.

If we revisit the US in 20-30 years time, my prediction is that the US will still be a troubled country; finding itself in a situation comparable to, or worse, than where it is today - and that it is independent of Trump losing or winning the upcoming election. Hungary, on the other hand, might be on the mend, with Orban out of the office.

The fact that the American leader is worse than the Hungarian one is kind of an unforeseeable historical accident. Trump is one of the worst leaders in history, or is magnified in that status by the enormity of his authority and responsibility compared to all others who have come to hold power or status in other times and places. However, working with less time in office, less popular and parliamentary support, than Orban, and given the smaller size and lower complexity of Hungary compared to the US, we can say that - so far - Trump has not been as successful as Orban in his dictatorial ambitions. And of course Orban has an actual ideological program that he has made progress on, which in a Trump cannot manifest beyond raw troglodytic instinct.

But anyway, while I don't have much understanding of the underlying tensions and challenges facing Hungary, I see little reason to take your precept for granted that Hungary's ethnic composition makes its problems less durable or more soluble than the US's.


I am not immediately aware of any modern state transitioning from democracy to dictatorship that had a relatively well-functioning democracy for more than a human lifespan.

Well, yes. my point is that it was arrogant and complacent of the post-Cold War West to assume itself "mature" and judge the struggling states of the Second and Third Worlds as mere deviations or failures. None of us were ever safe, as we're increasingly forced to confront.


This in on a spectrum - living on the countryside is different from living in a city. In the same respect - social cohesion - living in a city of a 100 000 might also be significantly different from living in a city of 10 million. Then add in ethnicities co-residing. And the dominant culture (if any) of a country, and how it contributes to the concept of kinship in society. It's a subject worthy of a chapter itself.

Different organizing principles - conscious ones - have been applied with varying effects and outcomes. But these are ultimately fictions. The author's insight is that we can, philosophically at least, dispose of those fictions and realize the true fractal and intersecting character of existing groups (which vary wildly by context) before reducing to the atomic individual. Thus it captures the reality of both individual and collective existence prior to the jurisdictional stratification of government and state. I treasure this insight because I've increasingly converged on some of its elements myself over the years, in observing the treatment of and divisions among Muslim immigrants and refugees, as compared to the true alienation of the American Republican from all recognizable morality and reality. (As I've sometimes mused in the Backroom, if we can declare elements among immigrants, or even the mere presence of immigrants, a prospective threat to our way of life and restrict them accordingly, why can't we abuse and disenfranchise those conationals of ours who are actually a clear and present danger as a demographic? There's no accepting the former over the latter without embracing grotesque ultranationalism and falling right into that selfsame category, except maybe in the cynical practical sense that the resistance of marginalized immigrant groups is easier to overwhelm than that of large swathes of the mainstream society.)

The ramifications as to the value or legitimacy of idealized unity and community in a limited jurisdiction versus radical disunity and contestation bounded by humanistic solidarity are challenging...

A thought: In smaller or less-complex (this may be an imprecise formulation, as what I'm really referring to is social bases of power) societies, authoritarianism is by the historical record more readily available based on - for example - the smaller number of stakeholders and institutions that need to be captured. On a global scale, assuming distributed actors of roughly comparable levels of wealth, resources, education, etc. it should be very difficult to overcome the numerous competing interests to establish authoritarianism.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hot take I almost posted on facebook: I try to purposely forget 9/11 and pretend it never happened. I don't see how people can find the courage to think about the first responder's who gave so much and who we so deeply betrayed for 18 years with our greed and our hatred towards all things government. 18 years we let those men and women die slowly of respiratory diseases and cancer without even so much as a promise that they would be taken care of.

The twin towers no longer represent heroism to me, it's just a reminder of how toxic our society is to the idea of goodwill and entitlement.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The twin towers no longer represent heroism to me, it's just a reminder of how toxic our society is to the idea of goodwill and entitlement.

And the toxicity continues in our attitude today. Thousands of firefighters and other emergency personnel on the line, during a pandemic, in the Western USA. Hardly a peep from Capital Hill, and none from Fearless Leader other than to excoriate California by saying "You gotta clean your floors." And then threaten to withhold federal funds....

It's evident by the folks who refuse any protocol what-so-ever to reduce the transmission of SARS-2, yet if they contract COVID-19, expect medical personnel to do their best to save their lives.

[Gilrandir]

An obstinate and self-contradictory interlocutor is very wearisome to engage with. It takes effort to muster a measure of grace and restraint in responding to your comments.

I don't believe you believe racism is bad, since you reject so many opportunities in this thread to concretely condemn it. That you don't accept that it is pervasive just goes to show...

I agree that 'collateral damage' is undesirable. I never asked you to embrace it. What I have consistently objected to in this thread is your automatic dismissal of racism and the experiences of non-whites in practice (and not just racism, criminal cops hurt us all in the end) in contrast to your instant plaintive concern for someone else's property a world away. The reality is that it's genuinely sad when someone's home or livelihood is unaccountably damaged. But the opinion of someone who wrongly frames that in opposition to a social movement or a social issue, as though it's an exclusive choice between them, and as though the objectives of reform or the underlying problems they reflect are no longer operative - that person's opinion simply doesn't matter because they don't care about justice or about causality. Their colors are plain.

The NFAC ideology does not demonstrate the dangerousness of the organization, which is the logical step you overlook. NFAC has no power to influence anything, nor any friends in power. Same as above, your focus on this relative triviality alongside dismissal of the actual, demonstrable, present and ongoing threats facing the country exposes fatally compromised priorities.

Ukrainian secession and Soviet dissolution ruined thousands, if not millions, of lives. But that's not reason enough to oppose it.

You have been overwhelmingly factually wrong throughout this thread, in some shocking and unanticipated ways. You've contradicted yourself in your declarations of personal sentiment multiple times. I can't take you seriously when you recommend epistemic humility.

Think more carefully about what your positions are and what you write about them. I do understand you, I just reproach you.



From my perspective, I can apply most of the epithets you have bestowed on me to you as well.
That is why I see no reason of continuing the cyclic argument with a tunnel-visioned person who is inconsistent in his claims, dismissive of or blind to the evident facts, who avoids unpleasant admissions, shifts the subject of the conversation, and gauges the stance of the opponent by construing this stance himself and calculating the number of times the opponent mentions universal truths. And adopts and edifying attitude, at that.

So, have nice riots. :bow:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Continuing saga of the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show here in the US:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/trump-ad-asks-people-to-support-the-troops-but-it-uses-a-picture-of-russian-jets-414883


A digital ad released by a fundraising arm of the Trump campaign on Sept. 11 calling on people to “support our troops” uses a stock photo of Russian-made fighter jets and weapons.

The ad, which was made by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, features silhouettes of three soldiers walking as a fighter jet flies over them.

Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow, confirmed that the planes are Russian MiG-29s, and also said the soldier on the far right in the ad carries an AK-74 assault rifle.

Kinda dovetails with this beauty:

https://twitter.com/dave_brown24/status/1183441421531045890

The only thing missing is a scene from Mr. Big:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSF9TQ86PVs

~D

[Viking]

So what are you asking for in practical terms, and to whom are you directing it? We could apply the desire for a comprehensive long-term plan on the course of human development in any number of domains, and maybe it would be right to begin demanding such, but you wouldn't really expect a civic, governmental, or business leader to have one one hand. What comes after the climate transition? What sort of relationship should civilization have to interstellar travel? I'm sure someone has thought about it, but it's not a question that should really hinder us in taking steps in the present. Find answers to academic subjects in academic literature.

I've touched on this already. It's directed at anyone who wants change, and it is straightforward:


What do you want to change (abolish this law, pass this law, fire this guy etc.) - and when is the change good enough, if ever?
How do you want to change it? (laws, government programs, civil society etc.)
What is your vision for the USA in the long term in terms of ethnic relations? (e.g. 50 or 100 years now on) Cf. the example I brought up earlier regarding ethnicity and economic power.


Bring people's ideas and visions into the public domain so that they can be debated, evaluated, and weighted. Answers to any of the points above don't have to be of more than a sentence or two before they can be seriously useful.


Ultimately the ethics of the situation are tied to a high degree with the perceived causalities, though alarmists are put in a bind by the demonstrable utilitarian fact that immigrants from poorer to richer countries tend to get better off than they were/would have been.

In the short term yes, in the long term: who knows. Following the logic above, the ethically correct solution would be to vacuum clean poor countries for people and put them in wealthy countries.


Of course it's not so simple as a matter of "freedom" and choice if one group is economically and socially disadvantaged, except in the ironic aphorism of Anatole France on the equality of the law.

[...]

Attitudes change, but slowly. The most effective known tool to breaking these behavioral patterns, as far as I know, is enforcing the integration of schools. It stands to reason that there is a unique effect following close and extended direct exposure, in all directions, during childhood. (New York City is one of the most residentially and educationally-segregated cities in the country vis-a-vis African Americans, and my high school was overwhelmingly East Asian, so I have the relatively-unusual psychology of being more familiar with people of Asian descent as an American than with people of African descent. My sister attended a more evenly-split school in terms of the major racial categories, and I wonder if she isn't in some ways better off.)

It's a bit unclear what you are suggesting here; schools dominated by students with minority backgrounds can be located a good distance away from schools that aren't, adding extra travel time for the affected students (increasing resentment among parents).

One thing is to collect taxes with the purpose of redistributing wealth, quite another thing is direct intervention in people's lives

Of course, in my theoretical understanding, the more multi-ethnic a society becomes, the more controlling (authoritarian) the state has to become to ensure everyday harmony in society (and the populace may also start to require it).


It would tell us something, that there is some level of hypocrisy or inconsistency even among liberals. But in the United States, during the era of the formation of modern segregated municipalities, there were virtually no such liberals among the white population; aversion towards blacks was near-universal, and this aversion was given the tools of actualization by government support and subsidies to whites, the housing boom, the highway boom, and the proliferation of private automobiles. These days when there is hypocrisy, it manifests in the choice of where to move to (not so much the choice to move away). There is still a persistent tendency to stereotype a geographic concentration of black people (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) as a presumptively-"bad" area, independent of relevant attributes like infrastructure, amenities, crime level (a fraught analysis itself as we have seen), income level, or anything else that might influence the suitability of domicile.

It could be hypocrisy, but it could also be a symptom of something potentially worse: that they don't really believe in the policies they support when push comes to shove.


Conflict is fine and normal; that what democracy is there for. Sectarian conflict of the sort you seem to darkly hint it is not inevitable


The argument is not that sectarian conflict is inevitable; the exact wording used was "significant probability". Presuming that you think Trump turning the US into an authoritarian state is an outcome of significant probability, I don't think you would appreciate it if someone tried to persuade you that voting for Trump is not unethical on the basis that the scenario is not inevitable.


Instead of sanctifying xenophobia[...]

You don't sanctify antisocial behaviour by taking it into account when planning for the future. A lock does not provide moral justification for burglary.


That's not clear at all, though of course "bad outcome" is vague. Moreover, such an assertion - with all attendant implications - needs to be justified overwhelmingly, not the other way around.

[...]

Again, it's your onus to argue against that prospective causality and ethic.

The onus is on anyone making any sort of claim; original claim or counter-claim. No claim is neutral.


Ethnic Swedes, going by past performance in other societies, are set to retain the overwhelming share of economic, political, and cultural power even should they form less than 50% of the country at some point (itself really not likely in our lifetimes). Insofar as they do not it would be because a more equal arrangement between groups is attained, in which case the bases of serious conflict are removed.

No, in a regular Western democracy, a vote is a vote; whether it is made by an affluent or a poor citizen.

If the disaffected form a majority of the population, all they need is one or more political parties to represent them in order to gain political power (seems (https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-invention-of-a-new-kind-of-political-party-in-sweden) that 1,500 signatures is all it takes to get a political party on the national ballot in Sweden). From political power, any other type of power can follow.

The biggest issue for such a scenario is heterogeneity among the immigrant population, and that that they would be required to actually vote for the relevant parties. But these issues have natural workarounds: the existence of multiple political parties, potentially catering to different demographics (e.g. Islamic, Christian and secular), and potentially occurring in combination with (or even exclusively through) takeovers of traditional Swedish parties. For the latter, you already have the example with the controversy surrounding links between Islamism (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/sweden-green-party-infiltrated-islamists-160426130534157.html) and the Swedish Green Party.

That said, it is not necessary to presume a conscious strategy to dominate the traditional political parties from the beginning. Numerical supremacy in the general population coupled with a certain percentage of the immigrant population having integrated well enough to rise to leadership positions in these parties would accomplish this which would make it easier for radical elements to ascend within the parties if the first wave of politicians were mostly idealists and individuals sympathizing with the traditional values of the parties in question.

Furthermore, economic parity is not strictly incompatible with physical ethnic segregation, where the latter would be a boon for an ethnicity-based political landscape.


You know the bolded is simply not true and has never been true. The existence of people is the oldest and most pervasive problem of all, doesn't mean you can go Thanos on them.

The sentence did not introduce anything new, it was supposed to hammer the point in: you don't get discriminated against for being a Somali by Somalis in Somalia (maybe they would discriminate against you for having lived abroad, but that is a separate matter).


Something you missed, Viking: Women are around half the population in every country. You can't segregate nations by gender (this is a surprisingly (https://knd.fandom.com/wiki/Operation:_F.U.T.U.R.E.) common premise (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6txovb) in cartoons). Sexual minorities exist in every country. Religious minorities exist in every country. Lower classes exist in every country.

The issue with this analogy is how ethnicity relates to human biology. Each of the groups you mention cannot form sustainable communities (not with today's technology, anyway) without recruitment from and/or exchange of germ cells with other communities, unlike ethnic groups, which are self-sustainable.

Ethnic groups are thus much more likely to both occur spontaneously and to be able to successfully maintain themselves over an extended period of time. In practice, an ethnicity is in many ways the minimal self-sustainable group, which make ethnicities natural candidates for the basis to form states around (saving any debate the over differences between nations and ethnicities for later)

But if any of these groups want to attempt to form countries of their own, I am not one to oppose it. I don't get the obsession with every kind of person living in the same society (of course, if every man and woman moved to separate countries, it would presumably be easier for the species to go extinct). For the groups above, it's mostly a question of where the land would come from, really.


Reactionaries will always react. They've been doing the same shit as now throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, in all the same places. They learn nothing and remember everything. There's no appeasing them for long. At some point you just have to put them down, jetzt erst recht.

How are you going to "put them down"?


"Physically impossible" is a strange way of describing the effects of sectarian animosity. Why is "immigrants" something that triggers physical impossibility and demands relief, but racism isn't? The burden should be on the unjust to change, and it should be our superordinate goal to facilitate that change, everywhere it manifests (which, contrary to the premise of a philosophical natural state of ethnic segregation, is everywhere in some form), because such prejudice is always harmful and injurious to all our interests.

Again you are taking the ethical perspective. Without a path to take to eliminate, or adequately minimize, ethical violations, that perspective becomes irrelevant. My position is that prejudice and antisocial behaviour are part of human nature, it is not something you can eliminate.

Societies are made up of forces of nature - you don't ask if it is unjust for a volcano to bury a village, it just does it. The thing in dispute here is whether you can tame specific forces, or eliminate them. I am not volunteering to take part in an experiment to see if that is possible, as I live in a country that already functions rather well, and given that when such experiments go wrong, the results are often beyond the pale.

Given that the US prides itself on being nation of immigrants, why don't you do the experiment for the rest of us. If the experiment is succesful, you are a beacon etc. etc.; if it goes wrong, at least you tried.


First of all, why would be relevant to the question of immigration policy and obligations, and second, why would we take it for granted?

For the former, why would it not? For the latter, short of the entire group migrating from the homelands, it doesn't seem particularly likely emigration would have a decisive impact on the situation.


It might be that Kurds are more similar to Turks than to French people, or Tunisians to Moroccans, but there is no question that a typical Kurd or Tunisian is better off in France than in Turkey or Morocco.

In Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran it's a matter of geopolitics; Kurds can be seen as a threat to national unity by the state and nationalists due to activism to form a Kurdish state. I am not so sure that your claim of Tunisians (or Kurds) being better off in France than Morocco is correct. There is also a distinction to be drawn between being better off as a member of an ethnic group (Arabs/Kurds) and being better off as a human (with the former being a subset of the latter). I.e. living standards (including access to healthcare) for the latter case versus e.g. ease or comfort of expressing a certain identity or cultural elements for the former case.

Given that Kurds are an Iranian people, places like Ossetia, Pakistan and Afghanistan could be better destinations when considering this important metric, even if you ignore the geopolitical issues in Turkey. When considering the geopolitical factor and ignoring the more precise ethnic context, nearby countries (geographic proximity might in itself be beneficial) like Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt would be better suited. Maybe Israel could be mentioned for secular and other non-Muslim Kurds (geographically close it is certainly).


For foreigners of a different complexion to live among you, be afforded the opportunity to participate in the polity and society, and not be denied resources necessary for that participation is too much to ask in your view? That's a fundamental disagreement.

It is not clear at all what you are talking about here. We are not talking about isolated individuals immigrating, nor are we talking about an influx of aloof intellectuals that weigh political issues based on general ethical and philosophical principles. We are talking about mass-immigration, and for the average human, the cultural and religious background is crucial for the view the person has on a political issue. A democratic state tends to express in its laws and its governance concepts of justice that are prevalent in its society. If you change the population of a democratic country, you change the state.

If you one day take 5 million people from a conservative part of Pakistan to Lithuania, a country of 3 million, the odds of a party promising Sharia laws coming to power in a later election would not be that slim. If the immigration is continuous over 100-300 years instead of a sudden explosion, you cannot assume that the probability of Sharia laws being introduced is now close to zero, for different reasons.


How you personally relate to individuals, in terms of intimacy, is categorically different from what sorts of duties humans have to each other collectively, and what sort of harms and derogations are legitimate to apply.

If interactions between individuals belonging to different groups of people tend to trend in a certain direction, then summing up all these interactions over all individuals will give you a non-zero sum, an abstract sum that potentially could describe most tangible effects in society.

The 'duties' you describe would include to ensure that countries don't become dysfunctional, with the grave consequences that has.


Bootstrapping? I'm referring to cooperation, which is possible today. Bootstrapping might be relevant to transcending a fragmentary world order, but there isn't a dichotomy holding us back from identifying and securing goals (e.g. international labor and environmental standards). In a more limited sense of bootstrapping, an actor with the will and influence to secure such programs needs to arise and realize the possible as something to subsequently build on. (Naturally the only extant candidate is the US.)

The point is that for international co-operation to work well, there is a limit to how selfish and incompetent leaders can be before it won't, and I expect dysfunctional countries to provide such leaders at a much greater frequency than functional countries.



Don't you feel it strange, that by this implication a subject of Suharto's New Guinea should be more resolute in the face of their challenges than some European having to accept that subject as a neighbor and citizen?

?


I am arguing for an unprecedented level of international cooperation, not just intergovernmental but increasingly transpolitan, as needed for the scale and universality of 21st century problems.

I get that.



Well, yes. my point is that it was arrogant and complacent of the post-Cold War West to assume itself "mature" and judge the struggling states of the Second and Third Worlds as mere deviations or failures. None of us were ever safe, as we're increasingly forced to confront.

From any of a bunch of world views that sees the world as a dynamic place, combined with basic probability theory, it follows that any democratic system would have a non-zero probability of turning into a dictatorship, and that a series of freak incidents lining up correctly would be all it takes for that to happen.

The big question is what the greatest threats to democracy are, and, hence, which democracies are the most vulnerable.


if we can declare elements among immigrants, or even the mere presence of immigrants, a prospective threat to our way of life and restrict them accordingly, why can't we abuse and disenfranchise those conationals of ours who are actually a clear and present danger as a demographic?

There is nothing particularly deviating here: foreign criminals are deported after serving their sentence, domestic criminals are attempted rehabilitated and re-integrated into society. If the criminal in question has a different cultural background than the majority, re-integration will presumably not be made any easier; part of the problem might be that the criminal was never well-integrated in society in the first place.

When the goal is to rehabilitate a radical Islamist, I'd place my bets on successful rehabilitation in a country where Islam is the majority religion over one where it is a minority religion.


A thought: In smaller or less-complex (this may be an imprecise formulation, as what I'm really referring to is social bases of power) societies, authoritarianism is by the historical record more readily available based on - for example - the smaller number of stakeholders and institutions that need to be captured. On a global scale, assuming distributed actors of roughly comparable levels of wealth, resources, education, etc. it should be very difficult to overcome the numerous competing interests to establish authoritarianism.

Russian and China are very big and complex countries.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Bring people's ideas and visions into the public domain so that they can be debated, evaluated, and weighted. Answers to any of the points above don't have to be of more than a sentence or two before they can be seriously useful.

This was basically the way it was 20-25 years ago here in the US. But today......yeesh:no: Social media has turned the world into a place where mis-information runs rampant, and the latest conspiracy theory drowns out intelligent conversation. It's why I believe social media is one of the worst ideas humans have come up with in a very long time (and concurrently, one of the better).


No, in a regular Western democracy, a vote is a vote; whether it is made by an affluent or a poor citizen.

Might be true in a hypothetical sense, but the screwed up voting process here in the US is what allowed Fearless Leader to claim the office in 2016. He lost the popular vote by a considerable amount, but 'won' the electoral vote. And that's not even considering all the gerry-mandering of voting districts that occur.....

[ReluctantSamurai]

One of the better critiques of Fox News I've seen in awhile:

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/09/fox-news-trump-language-stelter-hoax/616309/


Fox has two pronouns, you and they, and one tone: indignation. (You are under attack; they are the attackers.) Its grammar is grievance. Its effect is totalizing. Over time, if you watch enough Fox & Friends or The Five or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham, you will come to understand, as a matter of synaptic impulse, that immigrants are invading and the mob is coming and the news is lying and Trump alone can fix it.

Language, too, is a norm. It is one more shared fact of political life that can seem self-evident until someone like Trump, or something like Fox, reveals the fragility that was there all along. You might have observed, lately, how Americans seem always to be talking past one another—how we’re failing one another even at the level of our vernacular. In the America of 2020, socialism could suggest “Sweden-style social safety net” or “looming threat to liberty.” Journalist could suggest “a person whose job is to report the news of the day” or “enemy of the people.” Cancel culture could mean … actually, I have no idea at all what cancel culture means at this point. Fox, on its own, did not create that confusion. But it exacerbated it, and exploited it. The network turned its translations of the world into a business model.

Referring to the RNC:


The speeches, yes, were distractions from the ground truths of our crises. But they also attempted another kind of control: They reveled in the power TV has to shape—and to limit—viewers’ empathies. Instead of describing the America that is, the Republican Party described the America that is manufactured, every day, on Fox. It used its platform to refight some of Fox’s fondest micro-wars. It told its viewers not to focus on the people who have died, or the many more who might, but instead to focus on themselves: Your freedom. Your future. Your America. Watching it all, I felt the familiar fog that descends when something is lost in translation, when someone talks about something you share—in this case, a country—using details that are unrecognizable. It was the same kind of haze that came when Trump, newly sworn in as president, coined American carnage to describe a nation where violent crime had been declining for decades. Do we live in the same America? the broken words whisper. Maybe not, the same words reply.

On Trump's relationship with Fox News:


The leader and the news network speak, and enforce, the same language. Trump regularly lifts his tweets directly from Fox’s banners and banter. Last year, Media Matters for America’s Matt Gertz counted the times the president tweeted something in direct response to a Fox News or Fox Business program. Gertz found 657 such instances—in 2019 alone. Fox hosts and producers use that power to manipulate the president. “People think he’s calling up Fox & Friends and telling us what to say,” a former producer on the show tells Stelter. “Hell no. It’s the opposite. We tell him what to say.”

On Fox News viewership:


A 2019 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute tracked the differences between “Fox News Republicans” and other Republicans who said Fox was not their primary news source. Of the Fox loyalists, 55 percent said that there was nothing the president could do to lose their approval. That figure helps to explain how Fox can serve the state even as it operates independently. The “home team” is a powerful thing. Peter Pomerantsev, the author of Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia, points out how cannily Fox employs the metaphor of the family in its packaging of its opinion shows: Bill O’Reilly, Pomerantsev told me, was for a long time the network’s cynical uncle. Tucker Carlson is the quirky cousin. Sean Hannity, meanwhile, is “the father coming home, ranting about this horrible world where the white man felt disenfranchised.” Familiarity, literally—this is the “strict father” model of political discourse, rendered as infotainment. The upshot, Pomerantsev noted, is a constructed world that is above all “very, very coherent.”


“No cable operator has ever seriously flirted with dropping Fox to save money,” Stelter notes, “because, among other reasons, they believe the right-wing backlash would cripple their business.” The president has his base; so does the network. That confers another kind of impunity. Fox can say whatever it wants with little consequence, save for, perhaps, higher ratings. One of the most sobering takeaways of Stelter’s reporting is that Fox foments fear and loathing not really because of a Big Brotherly impulse, but because the network has recognized that fear and loathing, as goods, are extremely marketable. In 2020, Stelter notes, Fox “is on a path to $2 billion in profits.”


And yet: You are under attack, Carlson tells his viewers, with his signature furrow of the brow. They are coming for you, he insists. Carlson does what he wants, and says what he wants, because he can. And he suggests that his audience, through the transitive powers of television, can enjoy a similar freedom from accountability.


When cruelty is refigured as “free speech,” and when expertise becomes condescension—and when compassion is weakness and facts are “claims” and incuriosity is liberty and climate change is a con and a plague is a hoax—the new lexicon leaps off the screen. It implicates everyone, whether they speak the language or not.

[Hooahguy]

Grand jury decides (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/us/breonna-taylor-attorney-general-grand-jury-announcement/index.html) not to charge Louisville officers with killing Breonna Taylor, new round of protests have begun.


A former police officer was indicted only on first-degree wanton endangerment charges for his actions on the night Breonna Taylor was killed by police.

Two other officers who also fired shots during the botched March raid were not indicted, meaning no officer was charged with killing the 26-year-old Black emergency room technician and aspiring nurse.
The long-awaited grand jury decisions come more than six months after Taylor was shot to death after Louisville police officers broke down the door to her apartment while executing a late-night warrant in a narcotics investigation on March 13.

The charges against the former detective, Brett Hankison, were immediately criticized as insufficient by demonstrators and activists.

The counts pertain to Hankison allegedly firing blindly through a door and window, with bullets entering an adjacent apartment where a pregnant woman, a man and a child were home, according to the state attorney general.

Sgt. John Mattingly and Det. Myles Cosgrove, the two other officers, will face no charges following months of demonstrations and unrest over the killing. Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron on Wednesday said the officers were "justified in their use of force" because Taylor's boyfriend fired at officers first. An FBI ballistics analysis showed Cosgrove fired the shot that killed Taylor, he said.
Activists had demanded more serious felony counts, and the arrests of the three officers who fired shots the night Taylor was killed.


The anger is completely justified.

No justice, no peace.

[ReluctantSamurai]

No surprise here. The state of emergency being declared beforehand said it all as to the expected outcome....

[Montmorency]

Not to put too fine a point on the prior character of conservatives (https://medium.com/@devonprice/fox-news-didnt-steal-your-parents-8b1163403f6e), but the effect of Fox News (https://luke.substack.com/p/i-hate-what-theyve-done-to-almost-39f) is to turn Humans into Gremlins (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/i-gathered-stories-of-people-transformed-by-fox-news.html). The right-wing media ecosystem is (or should be) one of the great challenges to liberal free speech orthodoxy. China wishes it could have a Fox News. It is to the USSR's credit that they were incapable of coming up with it first despite being fellow travelers in their aims. Sure it takes two to tango, but reinforcement schedules have an observable output when established; they can be disestablished.

Whither Radio Rwanda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines)?




I've touched on this already. It's directed at anyone who wants change, and it is straightforward:

What do you want to change (abolish this law, pass this law, fire this guy etc.) - and when is the change good enough, if ever?
How do you want to change it? (laws, government programs, civil society etc.)
What is your vision for the USA in the long term in terms of ethnic relations? (e.g. 50 or 100 years now on) Cf. the example I brought up earlier regarding ethnicity and economic power.


Bring people's ideas and visions into the public domain so that they can be debated, evaluated, and weighted. Answers to any of the points above don't have to be of more than a sentence or two before they can be seriously useful.

On the occasion of the Swiss decisively rejecting a referendum on terminating Schengen et al - the followup to the quota referendum that narrowly passed back in 2014, as discussed on the Org - I thought I'd settle the issue.

What do you have in mind beyond what's going on now in the very active public discourse? If it all comes down to long-term visions of policy, I've already said that while it's a reasonable expectation to extend to any sphere of politics, it's unreasonable as a special demand with which to encumber or disprivilege a particular position.

(In terms of 'end' goals, those are pretty easy to conceptualize. The whole planet should be roughly equal in wealth and along life indicators and all jurisdictional barriers to coexistence should collapse. Whether there would be very much or very little migration under such a regime does not concern me. A more complicated question is if sectional difference will need to have vanished (been "unlearned"), will be transformed into something novel, or will achieve some kind of managed equilibrium. Planning out the course of the entire human civilization is actually quite difficult and hubristic; we'll have to take it step by step over extended periods of time. As for the USA in the short term, we should make it considerably easier, legally and administratively, for people to come to America and stay with threat of personal jeopardy, for months or years. Much of the border security accumulation since the 1990s should be abolished. Medium-term, a path to a North American Schengen is desirable, as a stepping stone to future political integration.)


More responsive toward your circumstances, in some abstract stable political environment it could in theory be available to hash out compromises between "no movement" and "unrestricted movement," but we're on the clock here. In identifying what the issues or potential problems are, let's be clear - currently, lawful immigration to most of Europe from outside the EU is very difficult. In fact, as authoritarian as the US immigration regime is most of the world has unexamined immigration policies that would be the envy of Stephen Miller. Yet millions continue to migrate to rich countries according to rules or not, some from less-developed neighbors for work, temporary or otherwise, others because their homes and livelihoods have vanished and they want to escape their region. These real-world pressures will only escalate exponentially over time, and changes to policy should take that into account. Almost all policy domains are implicated as to the management of migration into a state and around the international community broadly: regulation, technology, investment...

Not even proponents of unrestricted movement want it to come in the form of chaotic, desperate streams of refugees, so the first external policy set should be to mitigate the causes of such. If you don't want mass immigration, cut off the reasons why people would want to emigrate! That takes proactive investment to increase living standards and stability and opportunity abroad, as well as to mitigate the very predictable effects of climate disruption on large, relatively-poor, populations in tropical regions. If countries with means fumble that up on the road to plutocratic self-destruction it's on us, not them.

Internally, let's always be mindful of the sources of difficulties. It is not that there can't possibly be problems attendant to reterritorialization and ethnogenesis (i.e. hybridization of culture and population), but the form these problems take is almost always that of coercive bigots enforcing their beliefs on others. So to say that the introduction of heterogeneity is itself the problem, that the physical presence of immigrants is the problem, is to totally miss the mark. It is a misapplication of consideration, a mislocation of the site of the existential crisis, an illegitimate offloading of perceived risk, to blame those who suffer the burdens that are in themselves unjust. It is frankly monstrous to propose to sacrifice populations for (idealized) expedience rather than undertaking to challenge the disruptors of coexistence themselves.

It's wrong for the same reasons why it's wrong to assert that rape is a problem associated with the existence of women, and that removing women is necessary to preclude rape. I hope most of us understand that education and socioeconomic egalitarianism are what reduce and prevent rape, while providing something of mutual benefit! Yet there are those who go in the opposite direction, who describe contemporary masculine rage and alienation as a key social problem on the margins and one that could and should be assuaged by literally assigning females to young males (see: incel). Such means to stability are as depraved and misguided as they are inefficient.

Really, the very root of the disagreement is as much metaphysical as it is political, and in those terms - of course also in terms of practical guidance for policy - there is not a set of ideas to debate but a manifestation of politics to oppose.

I have heard people say that America is 90% poor, 10% rich, but we need to keep it that way because government services and redistribution lead to Soviet Communism. There are conservatives (https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-a-never-trumper-changed-her-mind) who believe - or claim to believe - that Biden's policy platform on issues like a public health insurance option present such a slippery slope toward tyranny that it would be preferable to vote for fascist demagogue Donald Trump. Frankly what's the psychological or methodological distinction between the above and the fear that the formerly colonized will eventually exert colonial brutality onto Europeans if they are allowed to exist in Europe, or whatever? I consider all of the above a mindless wickedness in its substance.

The bottom line is, I - and many others - categorically reject the reflexive impulse to impose burdens and harms onto marginalized populations. An exigent or compelling evidentiary case that deprioritizing human rights for securing some hormetically-oriented prospective (and this itself should be rigorously specified) greater good is the only threshold to compounding marginalization, to afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable. And of course any such project is inherently suspect for its recorded products across history (e.g. the Lifeboat Ethics of disgraced racist Garret Hardin in the 1960s). Stability must be humane, and for everything it must really be stable; pluralism-panic struggles to justify itself by those criteria. But given all that, the uncomplicated fear that, maybe someday, the hegemonic groups will become the marginalized, is invalid. That's literally Nazi logic (also, Camp of the Saints), or whatever the hell this freak (https://jacobitemag.com/2020/03/05/anti-leviathan/) is talking about.


In the night of ecological finitude on a fenced dark pasture in the human zoo, the Leviathan transforms itself into a silent hunter-predator: the Anti-Leviathan – a towering figure conceived of the accumulation of excess prosperity-sluggishness, harmlessness, naivety and supersatiety. Its historical duty is to temporarily, locally and discretely suspend the social contract and revoke the guarantee to life.

The tropes of auto-preservation, allo-immolation,and appeasement just tend to align in rationale across manifestations, and they've been discredited every time to my mind. What more is there to debate?



In the short term yes, in the long term: who knows. Following the logic above, the ethically correct solution would be to vacuum clean poor countries for people and put them in wealthy countries.

Most people naturally prefer to remain in their native areas. The practical reality is, either those with means pay for them to flourish there, or here. (Or we could have unimaginable widespread suffering and civilizational collapse and all that, but it isn't something we can consign ourselves to.)


It's a bit unclear what you are suggesting here; schools dominated by students with minority backgrounds can be located a good distance away from schools that aren't, adding extra travel time for the affected students (increasing resentment among parents).

In the past, white parents and local governments have literally had their kids travel further afield or closed down schools entirely to preempt integration. Racism isn't a function of convenience.


One thing is to collect taxes with the purpose of redistributing wealth, quite another thing is direct intervention in people's lives

I mean, our lives are shaped by the intervention or non-intervention of government in all sorts of ways. How does school assignment work in Norway?


It could be hypocrisy, but it could also be a symptom of something potentially worse: that they don't really believe in the policies they support when push comes to shove.

Or, the vast majority of people in general are not machines with rigorously-consistent ideologies. The framing of human nature here influences the interpretation.


That said, it is not necessary to presume a conscious strategy to dominate the traditional political parties from the beginning. Numerical supremacy in the general population coupled with a certain percentage of the immigrant population having integrated well enough to rise to leadership positions in these parties would accomplish this which would make it easier for radical elements to ascend within the parties if the first wave of politicians were mostly idealists and individuals sympathizing with the traditional values of the parties in question.

When has this happened? As far as I know when their ethnicity is not made salient by the wider society, immigrants vote according to individual ideologies. Otherwise, they seek safe harbor among those parties that are perceived to be least hostile to their group interests (e.g. existence).

If the complaint is on the other hand that the more immigrants there are, the more they will participate politically, is normal and reasonable. Newer groups in the population should also be expected to increase their rate of participation in politics as they integrate (I am given to understand participation and turnout tends to be consistently depressed even among those eligible, across countries). As you say, everyone's vote (in theory) counts the same. Fears of sectarian conflict where one group has a single perceived group interest that it is, as I said, not a valid anxiety to act upon to others' detriment. In all periods of American history, foresighted individuals have pointed out the increasing fascistic inclinations among significant elements of the population. These reached moments of greatest salience with the Goldwater campaign and Bircher movement in the 1960s, the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s, and the Gingrich/Norquist/Buchanan ascendance of the 90s. On the basis of these premonitions and observations would it have been appropriate for Democrats under Clinton to attempt to disenfranchise and suppress conservatives? Decidedly not (though on the other hand taking measures to prevent them from consolidating power toward minority rule would have been helpful). And we know and have always known that the existence of the far-right and of oligarchs is a more real existential threat than the existence of ethnic immigrants has ever been.


Furthermore, economic parity is not strictly incompatible with physical ethnic segregation, where the latter would be a boon for an ethnicity-based political landscape.

Sure, "separate but equal" is not theoretically unachievable, in the same way that there is a clear pathway to full communism...


Ethnic groups are thus much more likely to both occur spontaneously and to be able to successfully maintain themselves over an extended period of time. In practice, an ethnicity is in many ways the minimal self-sustainable group, which make ethnicities natural candidates for the basis to form states around (saving any debate the over differences between nations and ethnicities for later)

The point here is that social problems seem recurrent, but the common denominator is reactionaries. That ethnicity is more fluid than sex or gender doesn't seem relevant to separatism; if anything it undermines it. At any rate, class and religion and other such social markers can also be fluid in their context.


How are you going to "put them down"?

When they form minority factions, strengthening democracy and majoritarianism is the most productive and fair approach. When, as in a case like Hungary evidently, the reactionaries form a majority and oppress the minorities, it's a trickier proposition. From an internal perspective, dissidents should keep the flame of dissent lit to the extent permitted by concerns of personal safety. Externally, opposed entities should try to incentivize and influence the polity away from their nostrums. In the most extreme case this could take the form of military intervention, but in practice the maximal tactic is going to be economic sanctions.

If the US were like Hungary in the distribution of popular sentiment we would be pretty fucked and the world with us. As it is significant mass violence in the medium-term is not out of the question. Not that much of the world can easily escape mass violence this century for a variety of reasons, but I'm referring specifically to conflict over national character and sectarian power.


My position is that prejudice and antisocial behaviour are part of human nature, it is not something you can eliminate.

You don't have to eliminate it, but if the choice is between acting to contain it and sacrificing the actual targets of it - see above.

This isn't new ground for humanity. We have many examples of coexistence.


I am not volunteering to take part in an experiment to see if that is possible, as I live in a country that already functions rather well, and given that when such experiments go wrong, the results are often beyond the pale.

Aside from all the debates about history and causality per se - and my position is that the experiment you propose has always ended in horror - I have come to doubt that your lament can be your prerogative. Cf. metaphysical disagreement.


Given that the US prides itself on being nation of immigrants, why don't you do the experiment for the rest of us. If the experiment is succesful, you are a beacon etc. etc.; if it goes wrong, at least you tried.

We're doing better than a lot of countries in this regard, which may be why almost every developed country has chosen to liberalize immigration in some aspect. Even when qualifications and procedures are strict, such as Australia, you still have most of the country coming to be of recent immigrant stock.

At any rate, there is no scope or time for iterative "experiments" in our human existence. It would be silly of a Hayekian conservative, for example, to have demanded that select countries implement social welfare states before they be adopted by other countries. It was appropriate for as many countries as possible to converge on social democracy and to "experiment" with the particulars individually.


For the former, why would it not? For the latter, short of the entire group migrating from the homelands, it doesn't seem particularly likely emigration would have a decisive impact on the situation.

Given that Kurds are an Iranian people, places like Ossetia, Pakistan and Afghanistan could be better destinations when considering this important metric, even if you ignore the geopolitical issues in Turkey. When considering the geopolitical factor and ignoring the more precise ethnic context, nearby countries (geographic proximity might in itself be beneficial) like Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt would be better suited. Maybe Israel could be mentioned for secular and other non-Muslim Kurds (geographically close it is certainly).

I don't understand what you're referring to. Are you speaking from the assumption that immigration should be expected to benefit ethnic groups qua ethnic groups? When I speak of immigrant groups I'm not thinking of them as a subset of the global population of some supercategory, and I doubt it is common to do so. I'm thinking of them as a group in the context of the host society.

I disagree that living standards are a function of some cladistically-designated ethnic similarity quotient, and don't see how this is backed up by any experience. Are you referring to a separate issue of recent immigrants facing loneliness and other issues due to culture shock and communication barriers? That can be addressed with specific policy, and is moreover cured by time.


In Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran it's a matter of geopolitics;

Ethnic similarity (certainly as framed from the outside) has never been a barrier to geopolitics or other conflict, as I have often striven to underline.

Next you'll be telling me that Palestinians are better off living in Jordan or Lebanon or Egypt than in Germany or the US, by your theory - yet we know that objectively this is not the case.


If you change the population of a democratic country, you change the state.

In itself this is not a cause for complaint.


If you one day take 5 million people from a conservative part of Pakistan to Lithuania, a country of 3 million, the odds of a party promising Sharia laws coming to power in a later election would not be that slim. If the immigration is continuous over 100-300 years instead of a sudden explosion, you cannot assume that the probability of Sharia laws being introduced is now close to zero, for different reasons.

Why is that fear a sufficient basis for action in your view? By the same token the United States should have become a client of the papacy by now, as many Anglo Protestants warned in the 1800s (regarding the immigration of Irish, Italians, and eventually Latin Americans). We can say, no, back then those were virulent racists who sought to aggrandize their own sectional power at others' expense.

The alternative vision is that in the far future what is now Norway will harbor a syncretic culture or cultures that do not yet exist, and the society will have advanced toward mutual material and psychological benefit. That's also a probability, and some appeal to it as a reason to really adopt a policy of rapidly 'dumping' millions of people from poor countries into rich ones right away. (Others who take this view somehow go in the opposite direction in their motivation, arguing that Western societies are so good at assimilating immigrants that if we turbocharge mass immigration then libertarian capitalist Christianity will come to dominate the globe in short order...)


The 'duties' you describe would include to ensure that countries don't become dysfunctional, with the grave consequences that has.

Again, who are the actors and what are the tendencies? These aren't pure abstractions. The dysfunctional actors manifest their dysfunction in other domains.

Here we have an example of Putinist reprisal in the form of quietly-escalating ethnic cleansing against Crimean Tatars, who had just recovered generations after their Stalinist deportation.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/from-stalin-to-putin-the-crimean-tatars-face-a-new-era-of-kremlin-persecution/

By your theory there very existence is the core problem, rather than the novel depredations of an irredentist fascist dictator and his supporters.


There is nothing particularly deviating here: foreign criminals are deported after serving their sentence, domestic criminals are attempted rehabilitated and re-integrated into society. If the criminal in question has a different cultural background than the majority, re-integration will presumably not be made any easier; part of the problem might be that the criminal was never well-integrated in society in the first place.

You misunderstand, in this context I've consistently been referring to recrudescent elements of the far-right. To me the question of how to coexist with coethnics when irreconcilable belief systems generate dissonance is far more relevant and important than the abuse of ethnic pluralism (which, as it happens, is almost universally derived from certain belief sets).

If anything, I suspect intra-ethnic cultural or ideological dissimilarities and contradictions tend to exceed inter-ethnic ones.


When the goal is to rehabilitate a radical Islamist, I'd place my bets on successful rehabilitation in a country where Islam is the majority religion over one where it is a minority religion.

As a standalone proposition I don't think this is quite clear. Radical Islamists are more common, even proportionally, in majority-Muslim societies than otherwise.


Russian and China are very big and complex countries.

Institutionally and socially speaking, perhaps not. They're very top-heavy countries with a history of centralized government and extreme stratification many times older than liberal democracy. While they have been prone to collapse and fragmentation, it was and is probably more straightforward for emperors and dictators to exist in Russia and China than in, for example, 20th century Germany. What's relevant is how distributed among individual and group actors are wealth, influence on collective decision-making, access to state institutions, and so on. How many veto points exist. Something something selectorate. Russia and China have had a lot of people (i.e. large populations), but their influence on social structures and arrangements is more limited in the context of my theory. Compared to some smaller countries, fewer people control or mediate between many others. This all ties in, by the way, into some leftist ideas of why hierarchy is damaging and self-destabilizing. All social structures appear to decay over time into capture by personal or factional interests unless renewed by some active process, but consolidated power both speeds up this decay and hinders rehabilitation. You even see this narrative playing out in the falls of both the Roman Republic and Empire.

We'll see where they're headed, but some do argue that China has already become too socially complex for Xi's totalitarian model to offer long-term viability.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Pretty good read on some of the internal workings of a militia group, in this case, the Oath Keepers:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/right-wing-militias-civil-war/616473/


His comments became more inflammatory as he began to warn about antifa and protesters. “They are insurrectionists, and we have to suppress that insurrection,” he said. “Eventually they’re going to be using IEDs.”

“Us old vets and younger ones are going to end up having to kill these young kids,” he concluded. “And they’re going to die believing they were fighting Nazis.”

Afterward, Rhodes traveled through Kentucky, meeting Oath Keepers at their homes, where the conversations stretched for hours, always winding around the same question—what if?—and always coming back to the election. A man named James, a new member, told me people would accept the result—“as long as we believe the vote was fair. And if both sides can’t come to an agreement, then you’re going to have a conflict.”

And folks thought the first presidential debate was ugly...these people make that look like Sunday school shenanigans....:boxedin:

[Montmorency]

Pretty good read on some of the internal workings of a militia group, in this case, the Oath Keepers:

https://gen.medium.com/i-lived-through-collapse-america-is-already-there-ba1e4b54c5fc


I lived through the end of a civil war — I moved back to Sri Lanka in my twenties, just as the ceasefire fell apart. Do you know what it was like for me? Quite normal. I went to work, I went out, I dated. This is what Americans don’t understand. They’re waiting to get personally punched in the face while ash falls from the sky. That’s not how it happens.

This is how it happens. Precisely what you’re feeling now. The numbing litany of bad news. The ever rising outrages. People suffering, dying, and protesting all around you, while you think about dinner. If you’re trying to carry on while people around you die, your society is not collapsing. It’s already fallen down.

I was looking through some old photos for this article and the mix is shocking to me now. Almost offensive. There’s a burnt body in front of my office. Then I’m playing Scrabble with friends. There’s bomb smoke rising in front of the mall. Then I’m at a concert. There’s a long line for gas. Then I’m at a nightclub. This is all within two weeks.

Today I’m like, “Did we live like this?” But we did. I mean, I did. Was I a rich Colombo fuckboi while poorer people died, especially minorities? Well, yes. I wrote about it, but who cares.

The real question is, who are you? I mean, you’re reading this. You have the leisure to ponder American collapse like it’s even a question. The people really experiencing it already know.

As someone who’s already experienced societal breakdown, here’s the truth: America has already collapsed. What you’re feeling is exactly how it feels. It’s Saturday and you’re thinking about food while the world is on fire. This is normal. This is life during collapse.Collapse does not mean you’re personally dying right now. It means y’all are dying right now. Death is sometimes close, sometimes far away, but always there. I used to judge those herds of gazelle when the lion eats one of them alive and everyone keeps going — but no, humans are just the same. That’s the real meaning of herd immunity. We’re fundamentally immune to giving a shit.

It honestly becomes mundane (for the privileged). As Colombo kids we used to go out, worry about money, fall in love — life went on. We’d pop the trunk for a bomb check. Turn off our lights for the air raids. I’m not saying that we were untouched. My friend’s dad was killed, suddenly, by a landmine. RIP Uncle Nihal. I know people who were beaten, arrested, and went into exile. But that’s not what my photostream looks like. It was mostly food and parties and normal stuff for a dumb twentysomething.

If you’re waiting for a moment where you’re like “this is it,” I’m telling you, it never comes. Nobody comes on TV and says “things are officially bad.” There’s no launch party for decay. It’s just a pileup of outrages and atrocities in between friendships and weddings and perhaps an unusual amount of alcohol.

Perhaps you’re waiting for some moment when the adrenaline kicks in and you’re fighting the virus or fascism all the time, but it’s not like that. Life is not a movie, and if it were, you’re certainly not the star. You’re just an extra. If something good or bad happens to you it’ll be random and no one will care. If you’re unlucky you’re a statistic. If you’re lucky, no one notices you at all. Collapse is just a series of ordinary days in between extraordinary bullshit, most of it happening to someone else. That’s all it is.

One day, I was at work when someone left a bomb at the NOLIMIT clothing store. It exploded, killing 17 people. When these types of traumatic events take place, no two people experience the same thing. For me, it was seeing the phone lines getting clogged for an hour. For my wife, it was feeling the explosion a half-kilometer from her house. But for the families of the 17 victims, this was the end. And their grief goes on.

As you can see, this is not a uniform experience of chaos. For some people it destroys their bodies, others their hearts, but for most people it’s just a low-level hum at the back of their minds. Today I assume you went to work. Bad news was everywhere, clogging up your social media, your conversations. Maybe it struck close to you. I’m sorry. Somewhere in your country, a thousand people died. I’m sorry for each of them. A thousand families are grieving tonight. A thousand more join them every day. The pain doesn’t go away, it just becomes a furniture of bones, in a thousand homes.

But that’s exactly how collapse feels. This is how I felt. This is how millions of people have felt, including many immigrants in your midst. We’re trying to tell you as loud as we can. You can get out of it, but you have to understand where you are to even turn around. This, I fear, is one of many things Americans do not understand. You tell yourself American collapse is impossible. Meanwhile, look around. In the last three months America has lost more people than Sri Lanka lost in 30 years of civil war. If this isn’t collapse, then the word has no meaning. You probably still think of Sri Lanka as a shithole, though the war ended over a decade ago and we’re (relatively) fine. Then what does that make you?

America has fallen. You need to look up, at the people you’re used to looking down on. We’re trying to tell you something. I have lived through collapse and you’re already there. Until you understand this, you only have further to fall.


Welcome to the Shithole America. You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A bit over the top, but there certainly was a lot of truth to it:shrug: