|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 29 2016 09:14 Uldridge wrote:
I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever.
We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running.
If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group?
This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath.
If the highest priority problem is blacks being shot by police, then it's a good and productive thing for there to be an activist group calling attention to the issue.
|
The Wall Street Journal editorial page says President-elect Donald Trump should liquidate his stake in the family business.
"One reason 60 million voters elected Donald Trump is because he promised to change Washington's culture of self-dealing, and if he wants to succeed he's going to have to make a sacrifice and lead by example," the paper said in an editorial Friday.
The president is exempt from most conflict of interest laws. But the leading conservative newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (NWS), said Trump's business dealings will present a political problem because of "constant media scrutiny."
The Journal referenced the effort by Ivanka Trump's jewelry company to promote a $10,800 bracelet that she wore during an interview with CBS (CBS)'s "60 Minutes." The editorial characterized it as the beginning of "media catcalls."
With stakes in more than 500 companies around the world, Trump has more potential conflicts of interest than anyone ever elected president. He has said that he will turn the businesses over to his children, who have also been political advisers to him.
"If Mr. Trump doesn't liquidate, he will be accused of a pecuniary motive any time he takes a policy position," the Journal said. "Mixing money and politics could undermine his pledge to 'drain the swamp' In Washington."
CNN
|
On November 29 2016 09:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 09:14 Uldridge wrote:
I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever.
We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running.
If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group?
This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath. If the highest priority problem is blacks being shot by police, then it's a good and productive thing for there to be an activist group calling attention to the issue.
I think BLM definitely did a good thing in putting a massive amount of pressure on cops (atleast I would hope) when dealing with ambiguous situations especially where the potential suspect is non threatening. Just due to the consequence of there being a riot/political firestorm in their city if they do something completely uncalled for. So the bad apples are definitely going to lose some of their previously held power, but in any situation where there is noncompliance in dangerous cities you can't expect sympathy from law enforcement. The ones patrolling the streets of Baltimore or Chicago for example aren't going to give a shit about BLM, because them getting home safe is more important than any political activist movement or "racial bias".
|
Just thought about it in the shower randomly and it's obvious
This whole voter fraud spiel is what we'd for sure get if Trump would have lost, he must have been himself readied by the self-confirming poll firms, bought established media and betting markets skewed by large influencers, he had it ready to release it the moment he lost and then it never happened
But it was bugging him, this effort to get himself into the limelight and talked about...So he just couldn't help himself and had to whip it out anyway when he worked on that angle so hard :D
We're up for one hell of a fun presidency - Bush was at least such a gullible dumbass that his advisors with Cheney could just steer everything do their awful stuff behind the scenes. We'll get outbursts of pure Trump for the next four years even though I'd imagine all of his advisors are trying to tell him "sir you won, election's over, we have 4 years, media can't stop you no need to come out with random stuff, let's put that phone down" :D
|
On November 29 2016 09:14 Uldridge wrote:
I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever.
We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running.
If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group?
This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath.
It's fine to think it's on the oppressed to convince their oppressors that their oppression is wrong, but then one doesn't get to have it taken as a given that they respect the constitution, or black people as fellow Americans.
There's more than enough easily accessible information documenting that black people are being oppressed, particularly by police
So one can put it on the oppressed if they wish, but then they can't claim to respect the constitution at the same time. It's quite obvious to anyone who bothers to inquire ,that there are massive constitutional violations happening across the country, disproportionately to black people. If you care about Americans constitutional rights it's a no brainer that it's a serious and immediate problem. It's not doing anyone any favors to let people keep thinking it's possible to both revere the constitution and ignore the lack of it's protection being extended to millions of people across the country. Not only ignore it, but think they can proudly proclaim their ignorance without it being accurately characterized as a racist position.
On November 29 2016 09:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 09:20 Doodsmack wrote:On November 29 2016 09:14 Uldridge wrote:
I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever.
We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running.
If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group?
This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath. If the highest priority problem is blacks being shot by police, then it's a good and productive thing for there to be an activist group calling attention to the issue. I think BLM definitely did a good thing in putting a massive amount of pressure on cops (atleast I would hope) when dealing with ambiguous situations especially where the potential suspect is non threatening. Just due to the consequence of there being a riot/political firestorm in their city if they do something completely uncalled for. So the bad apples are definitely going to lose some of their previously held power, but in any situation where there is noncompliance in dangerous cities you can't expect sympathy from law enforcement. The ones patrolling the streets of Baltimore or Chicago for example aren't going to give a shit about BLM, because them getting home safe is more important than any political activist movement or "racial bias".
I see this a lot and I have to point out that it's far more dangerous to be a resident of those places than it is to be a cop. Additionally they don't get a a government issued badge, gun, car and don't have an army to back them up.
If they're that scared, they shouldn't be cops. They should go work a McDonalds or something where they can cope with the stress without committing crimes against the people they are sworn and paid to protect.
|
On November 29 2016 09:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If the highest priority problem is blacks being shot by police, then it's a good and productive thing for there to be an activist group calling attention to the issue.
But that's not the highest priority of BLM, it's one of their ways to highlight how systemically behind black people have been put by the system. It's more of an argument I think.
Edit: basically said the same thing twice with that last sentence lel
|
On November 29 2016 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I see this a lot and I have to point out that it's far more dangerous to be a resident of those places than it is to be a cop. Additionally they don't get a a government issued badge, gun, car and don't have an army to back them up.
What the fuck? Being a resident in the fucked up neighbourhoods is dangerous, sure, but is it as dangerous as the cop having the go to the dangerous neighbourhood on a (some times multitple times per) daily basis?
If they're that scared, they shouldn't be cops. They should go work a McDonalds or something where they can cope with the stress without committing crimes against the people they are sworn and paid to protect.
What a ridiculous standard and disgustingly dismissive thing to put on a human being. One isn't allowed to be scared when being put in potential life threatening situations? I could say the same thing in the sense of: "If people could get PTSD, they shouldn't become a soldier."
|
On November 29 2016 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 09:14 Uldridge wrote:
I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever.
We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running.
If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group?
This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath. It's fine to think it's on the oppressed to convince their oppressors that their oppression is wrong, but then one doesn't get to have it taken as a given that they respect the constitution, or black people as fellow Americans. There's more than enough easily accessible information documenting that black people are being oppressed, particularly by police So one can put it on the oppressed if they wish, but then they can't claim to respect the constitution at the same time. It's quite obvious to anyone who bothers to inquire ,that there are massive constitutional violations happening across the country, disproportionately to black people. If you care about Americans constitutional rights it's a no brainer that it's a serious and immediate problem. It's not doing anyone any favors to let people keep thinking it's possible to both revere the constitution and ignore the lack of it's protection being extended to millions of people across the country. Not only ignore it, but think they can proudly proclaim their ignorance without it being accurately characterized as a racist position. Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 09:25 biology]major wrote:On November 29 2016 09:20 Doodsmack wrote:On November 29 2016 09:14 Uldridge wrote:
I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever.
We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running.
If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group?
This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath. If the highest priority problem is blacks being shot by police, then it's a good and productive thing for there to be an activist group calling attention to the issue. I think BLM definitely did a good thing in putting a massive amount of pressure on cops (atleast I would hope) when dealing with ambiguous situations especially where the potential suspect is non threatening. Just due to the consequence of there being a riot/political firestorm in their city if they do something completely uncalled for. So the bad apples are definitely going to lose some of their previously held power, but in any situation where there is noncompliance in dangerous cities you can't expect sympathy from law enforcement. The ones patrolling the streets of Baltimore or Chicago for example aren't going to give a shit about BLM, because them getting home safe is more important than any political activist movement or "racial bias". I see this a lot and I have to point out that it's far more dangerous to be a resident of those places than it is to be a cop. Additionally they don't get a a government issued badge, gun, car and don't have an army to back them up. If they're that scared, they shouldn't be cops. They should go work a McDonalds or something where they can cope with the stress without committing crimes against the people they are sworn and paid to protect.
Yeah because they aren't even safe from themselves. Specifically in high violence precincts it's not a cops vs blacks issue, its black vs black and cops have to be a part of that equation without racial bias somehow. GH, I know where you are coming from but you don't consider the other perspective at all and just act like it's easy to be a cop. You see law enforcement as some institution that is purposefully out to abuse black people, I think that's a stretch. The poverty, lack of education, drugs, violence might be due to a systemic failure, but cops have to deal with the results of that failure, they didn't create it.
|
If you start to look into what police unions do relative to academy standards and oversight of officer misconduct, I think it's incredibly difficult to look at police as wholly innocent parties.
Here is a nice place to start reading-wise.
...Police unions emerged later than many other public-service unions, but they’ve made up for lost time. Thanks to the bargains they’ve struck on wages and benefits, police officers are among the best-paid civil servants. More important, they’ve been extraordinarily effective in establishing control over working conditions. All unions seek to insure that their members have due-process rights and aren’t subject to arbitrary discipline, but police unions have defined working conditions in the broadest possible terms. This position has made it hard to investigate misconduct claims, and to get rid of officers who break the rules. A study of collective bargaining by big-city police unions, published this summer by the reform group Campaign Zero, found that agreements routinely guarantee that officers aren’t interrogated immediately after use-of-force incidents and often insure that disciplinary records are purged after three to five years.
Furthermore, thanks to union contracts, even officers who are fired can frequently get their jobs back. Perhaps the most egregious example was Hector Jimenez, an Oakland police officer who was dismissed in 2009, after killing two unarmed men, but who then successfully appealed and, two years later, was reinstated, with full back pay. The protection that unions have secured has helped create what Samuel Walker, an emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, and an expert on police accountability, calls a “culture of impunity.” Citing a recent Justice Department investigation of Baltimore’s police department, which found a systemic pattern of “serious violations of the U.S. Constitution and federal law,” he told me, “Knowing that it’s hard to be punished for misconduct fosters an attitude where you think you don’t have to answer for your behavior.”
For the past fifty years, police unions have done their best to block policing reforms of all kinds. In the seventies, they opposed officers’ having to wear name tags. More recently, they’ve opposed the use of body cameras and have protested proposals to document racial profiling and to track excessive-force complaints. They have lobbied to keep disciplinary histories sealed. If a doctor commits malpractice, it’s a matter of public record, but, in much of the country, a police officer’s use of excessive force is not. Across the nation, unions have led the battle to limit the power of civilian-review boards, generally by arguing that civilians are in no position to judge the split-second decisions that police officers make. Earlier this year, Newark created a civilian-review board that was acclaimed as a model of oversight. The city’s police union immediately announced that it would sue to shut it down...
Link
|
On November 29 2016 09:41 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I see this a lot and I have to point out that it's far more dangerous to be a resident of those places than it is to be a cop. Additionally they don't get a a government issued badge, gun, car and don't have an army to back them up.
What the fuck? Being a resident in the fucked up neighbourhoods is dangerous, sure, but is it as dangerous as the cop having the go to the dangerous neighbourhood on a (some times multitple times per) daily basis? Show nested quote +If they're that scared, they shouldn't be cops. They should go work a McDonalds or something where they can cope with the stress without committing crimes against the people they are sworn and paid to protect. What a ridiculous standard and disgustingly dismissive thing to put on a human being. One isn't allowed to be scared when being put in potential life threatening situations? I could say the same thing in the sense of: "If people could get PTSD, they shouldn't become a soldier."
Statistically yes, it is. I could pull up the statistics, but it should be pretty self-apparent that very few cops are killed each year fewer so in these areas, yet, hundreds of people are being murdered in a city like Baltimore.
But since you're not from the US it may not be as apparent so here's some statistics.
Approximately 300 +/- people were murdered by gunfire in Baltimore
However, 0 police were murdered by gunfire in Baltimore.
So in the 1st/2nd (depending on how you count) deadliest year in Baltimore history, no cops got killed.
That sounds a lot more dangerous for the citizens than it does for the cops, considering they also get bullet proof vests in case they are shot, further reducing the likelihood of facing death.
I didn't say they have to be fearless, just that if they are so fearful that they can't do their job they should get a different job until police work reaches a threat level, in their perception, that would allow them to do the job without violating peoples rights.
If you asked me if we should give someone with unmanaged PTSD a badge, gun, and authority of police officer I would tell you that's a terrible idea too.
On November 29 2016 09:44 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2016 09:14 Uldridge wrote:
I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever.
We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running.
If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group?
This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath. It's fine to think it's on the oppressed to convince their oppressors that their oppression is wrong, but then one doesn't get to have it taken as a given that they respect the constitution, or black people as fellow Americans. There's more than enough easily accessible information documenting that black people are being oppressed, particularly by police So one can put it on the oppressed if they wish, but then they can't claim to respect the constitution at the same time. It's quite obvious to anyone who bothers to inquire ,that there are massive constitutional violations happening across the country, disproportionately to black people. If you care about Americans constitutional rights it's a no brainer that it's a serious and immediate problem. It's not doing anyone any favors to let people keep thinking it's possible to both revere the constitution and ignore the lack of it's protection being extended to millions of people across the country. Not only ignore it, but think they can proudly proclaim their ignorance without it being accurately characterized as a racist position. On November 29 2016 09:25 biology]major wrote:On November 29 2016 09:20 Doodsmack wrote:On November 29 2016 09:14 Uldridge wrote:
I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever.
We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running.
If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group?
This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath. If the highest priority problem is blacks being shot by police, then it's a good and productive thing for there to be an activist group calling attention to the issue. I think BLM definitely did a good thing in putting a massive amount of pressure on cops (atleast I would hope) when dealing with ambiguous situations especially where the potential suspect is non threatening. Just due to the consequence of there being a riot/political firestorm in their city if they do something completely uncalled for. So the bad apples are definitely going to lose some of their previously held power, but in any situation where there is noncompliance in dangerous cities you can't expect sympathy from law enforcement. The ones patrolling the streets of Baltimore or Chicago for example aren't going to give a shit about BLM, because them getting home safe is more important than any political activist movement or "racial bias". I see this a lot and I have to point out that it's far more dangerous to be a resident of those places than it is to be a cop. Additionally they don't get a a government issued badge, gun, car and don't have an army to back them up. If they're that scared, they shouldn't be cops. They should go work a McDonalds or something where they can cope with the stress without committing crimes against the people they are sworn and paid to protect. Yeah because they aren't even safe from themselves. Specifically in high violence precincts it's not a cops vs blacks issue, its black vs black and cops have to be a part of that equation without racial bias somehow. GH, I know where you are coming from but you don't consider the other perspective at all and just act like it's easy to be a cop. You see law enforcement as some institution that is purposefully out to abuse black people, I think that's a stretch. The poverty, lack of education, drugs, violence might be due to a systemic failure, but cops have to deal with the results of that failure, they didn't create it.
The architects of the war on drugs have openly admitted that they did in fact use policing as a way to target black people and undermine their political influence.
You see it as a stretch, I see it as something that's already been admitted to (though obviously that's not it's sole purpose). Like I said, I put the lion's share of blame on the leadership, but the individuals on the street aren't absolved of all responsibility simply because they didn't create the situation
|
On November 29 2016 04:56 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 04:32 Danglars wrote:Senate Republicans are wary of making a historic move to nix the filibuster despite growing pressure from conservatives.
Roughly two weeks after Donald Trump's White House win, GOP lawmakers are already facing calls to overhaul Senate rules and help push through the real estate mogul's agenda.
The calls to go "nuclear" are only likely to intensify next year when Democrats begin to carry out their pledge to fight Trump's agenda on areas where they disagree.
But Senate Republicans are openly skeptical about making a rules change they believe could come back to bite them, when they are inevitably back in the minority.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who led a task force to review potential rule changes, said there isn’t “very much” of an appetite to overhaul the filibuster. The HillOne of the first challenges of the Trump administration is what to do about the inevitable filibuster of appointees and bills he wants to sign. Reid suspended it when he wanted Obama appointees confirmed. We'll see if the man and his Twitter can compel similar levels of action from entrenched senators he spent the entire campaign trashing. At least the Senators are wiser about applying the nuclear option. The debate to end the filibuster arguments happen all the time.
I can't call it wisdom at this point knowing the Democrats used the nuclear option to get Obama appointees past filibusters. I would be the staunchest defender of the filibuster if neither side had popped that cherry and respected the rule. Since that changed, all options should be open for supreme court justices and major pieces of legislation Trump has vowed to get through. I do however have a very low opinion of the spines of Senatorial leadership.
On November 29 2016 09:14 Uldridge wrote:I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever. We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running. If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group? This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath. Show nested quote +You say they are "inexcusable" but they have been excused for decades. Some of the more recent ones, the NC cop who shot an unarmed man in the back as he ran and then lied in his report and attempted to plant evidence comes to mind. He wasn't going to get arrested until some bystander came forward with contrary video to the story the police (and by extension the media) had already said was true. The cop should be fired, jailed (if the trial finds him guilty, which he should be if justice exists) and he should never be a able to work as a servant of the people ever again (or just a cop, I'm not decided yet). Or he could become rehabilitated if needed (like in Norway). But he needs to be punished accordingly nonetheless. But what can someone who doesn't have the resources nor the time for this shit do abot it? I can condemn it, sure, I could vote for a bill to change the justice system or the way the disciplinary board works. But more than that is out of my willingness to do. It's up to people who are truly passionate about it to make actual change.
Mopping with the faucet running is quite a good analogy. If you can spot problems in policing and the criminal justice system, but not the problems within your own movement (LL & CS did a sufficient job on that front), you're going to have lasting problems. And if you went to blacklivesmatter.com, the about page reveals that *gasp* murderer Zimmerman was acquitted for his crime and Trayvon was posthumously placed on trial for his own murder. If we're being serious about starting a movement, having your about page's first paragraph attacking the jury trial system and babbling about a dead man on trial is not the way to do it.
Good attention to the divergence of goals and analysis. At this point, the only hope is a rebranding around some new figures that know how to rally people to your cause.
|
I found some interesting statistics as well. When trying to find some more answers for why blacks have it harder in the USA than whites.
On Views of Race and Inequality, Blacks and Whites Are Worlds Apart
5 key takeaways about views of race and inequality in America
Sharp differences over who is hurt, helped by their race
The Racial Confidence Gap in Police Performance
All from the Pew Research Center.
But the main issue and my key belief is still there, you can't fix something superficially when something internally is wrong. I'm confident the police is a problem, I also think there's still discrimination based on skin colour, but I also think certain communities such deep rooted problems that you need to address these as well. Pointing fingers to the system without introspection is always naive.
I can tell you this though: in my experience (future and past) I have and will always try to be as unbiased as possible. For me, when judging someone on their competence or whatever, will be purely that, regardless of race or gender or background. Will I ever be put in a situation like this, though? Probably not, but I will try to live my life as unbiased as possible and will try to make the people immediately around me the same way. And I don't think you should expect more of me honestly. I'll try to educate or re-educate myself from time to time to stay with how things are, but I'm not going to invest more resources or time than I deem necessary, it's just not my calling.
On November 29 2016 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +That sounds a lot more dangerous for the citizens than it does for the cops, considering they also get bullet proof vests in case they are shot, further reducing the likelihood of facing death. I didn't say they have to be fearless, just that if they are so fearful that they can't do their job they should get a different job until police work reaches a threat level, in their perception, that would allow them to do the job without violating peoples rights. If you asked me if we should give someone with unmanaged PTSD a badge, gun, and authority of police officer I would tell you that's a terrible idea too.
Yeah you're right, my bad. Now that I reassess the context in which the neighbourhood functions and when a cop is or isn't present, it's a totally different scenario.
This just artical just shows to me there's in inherent infrastructural problem (probably with a few other ones I can't think of right now) with why these issues occur. It's a problem of how the system was set up and executed and not part of what is going on now per se. People are stuck in a system that just doesn't work and they can't get out and resort to violence and gang formation and whatever.
|
What's naive is for the same people who say they have a hard time figuring out what BLM wants (an outward facing organization) suggesting that there isn't any introspection going on.
There's tons of introspection, like a lot more than we have seen from Hillary supporters or Trump supporters here or elsewhere. Of course BLM isn't perfect in it's messaging, that puts them in the company of every organization that ever existed. It's hardly remarkable. Are they doing more than enough to engage people who actually care about their fellow Americans constitutional rights being violated on a massive scale, I'd say you're damn right they are.
They may not like being informed that they don't really care, but if they can't match the effort one spends to read/participate in this thread to figure out what these massive protests, investigations, and movement is about, the fact is that they really don't care.
|
On November 29 2016 10:11 Uldridge wrote:I found some interesting statistics as well. When trying to find some more answers for why blacks have it harder in the USA than whites. On Views of Race and Inequality, Blacks and Whites Are Worlds Apart5 key takeaways about views of race and inequality in AmericaSharp differences over who is hurt, helped by their raceThe Racial Confidence Gap in Police PerformanceAll from the Pew Research Center. But the main issue and my key belief is still there, you can't fix something superficially when something internally is wrong. I'm confident the police is a problem, I also think there's still discrimination based on skin colour, but I also think certain communities such deep rooted problems that you need to address these as well. Pointing fingers to the system without introspection is always naive. I can tell you this though: in my experience (future and past) I have and will always try to be as unbiased as possible. For me, when judging someone on their competence or whatever, will be purely that, regardless of race or gender or background. Will I ever be put in a situation like this, though? Probably not, but I will try to live my life as unbiased as possible and will try to make the people immediately around me the same way. And I don't think you should expect more of me honestly. I'll try to educate or re-educate myself from time to time to stay with how things are, but I'm not going to invest more resources or time than I deem necessary, it's just not my calling. Your obsession with avoiding bias inevitably leads to the development of your own kind of "anti-bias" bias that colors the necessarily biased world around you. Let's be real here. You're coming into a US politics thread to discuss police and race issues without even thinking to discount your own perspective's bias given your distance from the subject matter, and GH is a black man who lives in the US. Naturally, this thread would slow to a halt if everyone took the rhetorical time to properly situate their opinion prior to issuing one, but to insist that you, unlike others, have a devotion to thinking and acting in an "unbiased manner" is to ignore the reality of what it means to be a person from a place who thinks things and has had experiences. It wouldn't exactly be difficult to assign you the role of "disinterested European who thinks he's immune to the fire that burns beneath race relations in the US," but that wouldn't be a very useful thing to do, now would it?
(I must reiterate that political discussions on TL benefit greatly from the involvement of all sorts of people, and I thank you for your contributions all the same Uldridge  )
|
On November 29 2016 09:41 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I see this a lot and I have to point out that it's far more dangerous to be a resident of those places than it is to be a cop. Additionally they don't get a a government issued badge, gun, car and don't have an army to back them up.
What the fuck? Being a resident in the fucked up neighbourhoods is dangerous, sure, but is it as dangerous as the cop having the go to the dangerous neighbourhood on a (some times multitple times per) daily basis? Show nested quote +If they're that scared, they shouldn't be cops. They should go work a McDonalds or something where they can cope with the stress without committing crimes against the people they are sworn and paid to protect. What a ridiculous standard and disgustingly dismissive thing to put on a human being. One isn't allowed to be scared when being put in potential life threatening situations? I could say the same thing in the sense of: "If people could get PTSD, they shouldn't become a soldier."
as he already cited; the residents are in far more danger than the cops.
just as cops kill far more people than they are killed by. (ratio of somewhere ~10:1 to 20:1)
and cop isn't among the top 10 most dangerous occupations either.
it sounds like you should study the issue more.
It seems entirely reasonable to choose people for officers who would risk their lives to save another rather than sacrifice another to save their own.
and ninjas keep putting in posts before me that are of better quality, darn superninjas!
|
On November 29 2016 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's naive is for the same people who say they have a hard time figuring out what BLM wants (an outward facing organization) suggesting that there isn't any introspection going on.
There's tons of introspection, like a lot more than we have seen from Hillary supporters or Trump supporters here or elsewhere. Of course BLM isn't perfect in it's messaging, that puts them in the company of every organization that ever existed. It's hardly remarkable. Are they doing more than enough to engage people who actually care about their fellow Americans constitutional rights being violated on a massive scale, I'd say you're damn right they are.
They may not like being informed that they don't really care, but if they can't match the effort one spends to read/participate this thread to figure out what these massive protests, investigations, and movement is about, the fact is that they really don't care.
If you think I don't know what BLM wants, you're mistaken. I just don't think they're enough of a unified movement and the bad seeds are just too apparant (or maybe that's just because I've seen too many bad apple videos to distort my view).
And I'm not talking about BLM in general, and I also don't know if this has been discussed to death before, but I was talking more about introspection from a societal perspective. You always need to be critical of what's going on. But you need to account for all the parameters, not just a few. So what are all the problems in a certain community (which is based upon geography, distribution, historical development, etc etc..)
I think a very nuanced and detailed study of how a certain state, or city or whatever that has been formed, coupled with certain socio-economical elements are a good basis to understand alot of problems in its entirety and how they could potentially be fixed.
On November 29 2016 10:23 farvacola wrote:
Your obsession with avoiding bias inevitably leads to the development of your own kind of "anti-bias" bias that colors the necessarily biased world around you. Let's be real here. You're coming into a US politics thread to discuss police and race issues without even thinking to discount your own perspective's bias given your distance from the subject matter, and GH is a black man who lives in the US. Naturally, this thread would slow to a halt if everyone took the rhetorical time to properly situate their opinion prior to issuing one, but to insist that you, unlike others, have a devotion to thinking and acting in an "unbiased manner" is to ignore the reality of what it means to be a person from a place who thinks things and has had experiences. It wouldn't exactly be difficult to assign you the role of "disinterested European who thinks he's immune to the fire that burns beneath race relations in the US," but that wouldn't be a very useful thing to do, now would it?
I was using it in a general sense, as in: never in my life am I going to try to be biased towards someone based on their skin colour or gender. Like, we have people from other nationalities here too, you know 
It's a global issue and not just bound to the USA and it's kind of an interest of mine so I kind of feel compelled to discuss on these issues.
I've been involved enough with ancdotes and news from abroad to feel like I'm able to give some form of opinion about these issues.
I don't ignore these experiences and thoughts, I'm saying what I want/can (to) do personally to contribute in the leveling of inequality in my community wherever that is and if it exists there.
Yes I can't ever know how it is to be a certain someone in a certain situation other than my own, but I can try to have an idea of it and I think I do. If you think I'm not at all constructive and am not contributing anything you can call me out on that any time haha.
On November 29 2016 10:23 zlefin wrote:
as he already cited; the residents are in far more danger than the cops.
just as cops kill far more people than they are killed by. (ratio of somewhere ~10:1 to 20:1)
and cop isn't among the top 10 most dangerous occupations either.
it sounds like you should study the issue more.
It seems entirely reasonable to choose people for officers who would risk their lives to save another rather than sacrifice another to save their own.
Cops might not be in the top 10 list, they are in the top 20 list though heheh
and ninjas keep putting in posts before me that are of better quality, darn superninjas!
And I have since then understood I was wrong. I'm pretty sure it's hard to be a cop or a soldier or whatever and not be afraid at one point or another. I was reaction more to the bluntness of the line rather than the full context of it. But that's the issue of discussing with text I guess and that's why we have these forums so we can elaborate more if needed
|
Cop did a good job, guy sounded like a total psycopath.
No protests from BLM over this one i hope.
|
On November 29 2016 10:03 Danglars wrote:
I can't call it wisdom at this point knowing the Democrats used the nuclear option to get Obama appointees past filibusters. I would be the staunchest defender of the filibuster if neither side had popped that cherry and respected the rule. Since that changed, all options should be open for supreme court justices and major pieces of legislation Trump has vowed to get through. I do however have a very low opinion of the spines of Senatorial leadership.
There's still also the strategic choice of whether to do it, because the fact remains that it may increase the likelihood of Democrats doing it again (without Reid).
There's also the question of whether there is actually a difference between Democratic and Republican behavior in Congress. Just how many judicial nominees were blocked in the Obama term compared to the past? What's the reason to just hold up every nominee? Congress was abusing its power - is it really the case that this was also done in the past? There are a fair share of pure right wing districts in the House.
|
Return the filibuster to the old method imho; that one worked decently. It's just the new version that's trash. Or use one of the versions used in state legislatures that's good.
As a pure guess, I'd say Dems would use filibuster sparingly, and focus on a small number of appointees they feel go too far. And the republicans will sacrifice a few of the ones that they don't like while forcing the rest through (or making a deal on it).
|
On November 29 2016 10:40 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's naive is for the same people who say they have a hard time figuring out what BLM wants (an outward facing organization) suggesting that there isn't any introspection going on.
There's tons of introspection, like a lot more than we have seen from Hillary supporters or Trump supporters here or elsewhere. Of course BLM isn't perfect in it's messaging, that puts them in the company of every organization that ever existed. It's hardly remarkable. Are they doing more than enough to engage people who actually care about their fellow Americans constitutional rights being violated on a massive scale, I'd say you're damn right they are.
They may not like being informed that they don't really care, but if they can't match the effort one spends to read/participate this thread to figure out what these massive protests, investigations, and movement is about, the fact is that they really don't care. If you think I don't know what BLM wants, you're mistaken. I just don't think they're enough of a unified movement and the bad seeds are just too apparant (or maybe that's just because I've seen too many bad apple videos to distort my view). And I'm not talking about BLM in general, and I also don't know if this has been discussed to death before, but I was talking more about introspection from a societal perspective. You always need to be critical of what's going on. But you need to account for all the parameters, not just a few. So what are all the problems in a certain community (which is based upon geography, distribution, historical development, etc etc..) I think a very nuanced and detailed study of how a certain state, or city or whatever that has been formed, coupled with certain socio-economical elements are a good basis to understand alot of problems in its entirety and how they could potentially be fixed. Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 10:23 farvacola wrote:
Your obsession with avoiding bias inevitably leads to the development of your own kind of "anti-bias" bias that colors the necessarily biased world around you. Let's be real here. You're coming into a US politics thread to discuss police and race issues without even thinking to discount your own perspective's bias given your distance from the subject matter, and GH is a black man who lives in the US. Naturally, this thread would slow to a halt if everyone took the rhetorical time to properly situate their opinion prior to issuing one, but to insist that you, unlike others, have a devotion to thinking and acting in an "unbiased manner" is to ignore the reality of what it means to be a person from a place who thinks things and has had experiences. It wouldn't exactly be difficult to assign you the role of "disinterested European who thinks he's immune to the fire that burns beneath race relations in the US," but that wouldn't be a very useful thing to do, now would it? I was using it in a general sense, as in: never in my life am I going to try to be biased towards someone based on their skin colour or gender. Like, we have people from other nationalities here too, you know It's a global issue and not just bound to the USA and it's kind of an interest of mine so I kind of feel compelled to discuss on these issues. I've been involved enough with ancdotes and news from abroad to feel like I'm able to give some form of opinion about these issues. I don't ignore these experiences and thoughts, I'm saying what I want/can (to) do personally to contribute in the leveling of inequality in my community wherever that is and if it exists there. Yes I can't ever know how it is to be a certain someone in a certain situation other than my own, but I can try to have an idea of it and I think I do. If you think I'm not at all constructive and am not contributing anything you can call me out on that any time haha.
I replaced the you's with they's to hopefully avoid the confusion. I think I made progress with both you and LL. I think you both actually do a decent job of illustrating what someone who is earnestly wanting to engage in the conversation looks like.
LL pushed back a bit in the beginning when we were establishing what we were actually saying, but reasonably quickly came to the conclusion that he doesn't care about the issue to the extent that he cares about issues with those he shares the phenotypical feature of skin color and accepted that it's a racist position (for Americans).
IIRC You came in with basically a rant on why privilege shouldn't burden you with the responsibility for the downtrodden. Now unlike the Americans here, you actually have some ground to stand on in that position or at least I don't know what kind of obligations toward the disadvantaged your citizenship indebts you to.
The conversation was centered around whether messaging was responsible for those who choose to ignore BLM's desired resolutions. That's not quite the conversation we engaged in.However, you quickly realized you were a bit unknowing of the nuance surrounding the differences between perception and reality (relative danger of being an officer, fear, etc...) but unlike many, you accepted that you were misinformed about those topics, and are being reasonable in your pursuit for a better understanding.
That's what sincere discussion in good faith around this topic looks like imo. Note that I don't think I agree with either LL or Uld's positions, but they are at least taking sincere positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
