|
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. |
I just want people to appreciate this cycle in this thread.
1. Conservatives complain that the left silences them by calling them racist.
2. They then process down a line of discussion that ends in saying a bunch of stuff that claims racism isnt’ a problem and the left makes it a problem.
3. They get called racist.
4. “Look I told you, what a victim am I!”
|
On August 18 2017 03:16 Plansix wrote:
I just want people to appreciate this cycle in this thread.
1. Conservatives complain that the left silences them by calling them racist.
2. They then process down a line of discussion that ends in saying a bunch of stuff that claims racism isnt’ a problem and the left makes it a problem.
3. They get called racist.
4. “Look I told you, what a victim am I!”
Worth noting the justification for (2) often includes racist propositions, that the person makes without realizing.
|
And the desire for a color blind society.
|
On August 18 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:56 IgnE wrote:On August 18 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:47 IgnE wrote:On August 17 2017 23:39 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
One of the issues I'm having with what you keep doing is that you never actually attempt to outline what "racism" is. I'm assuming you're of the opinion that the Mahjong scenario is not racist, but the train scenario is. But what is the difference between the train scenario and the Mahjong scenario? If you don't want the term "racist" to be diluted, you need a commonly understood definition for "racism" and only use the term when it meets that definition. Instead, we have a status quo where racism is functionally defined as a "you know it when you see it" thing, which, of course, is a total mess in practice.
Earlier in this discussion, I was accused of having a racist analysis for having allegedly incorrect facts (I disagreed, but that's irrelevant)--when I think it was clear to all sides that there was no intent to be racist. In that case, "you know it when you see it" led to "alleged factual inaccuracy = racist." Now in this discussion, you're asserting (see bold) that using a stereotype as a prior is racist (i.e. having stereotypes = racist). Even though, using a stereotype in the Mahjong scenario was not racist.
If this happens in a discussion literally about the dilution of the word "racist" (where you'd expect people to be particularly careful), how can you assert that people are more careful in conversations where they have political motives to slander their opponents as a racist and no incentive to be careful about how they use the term?
[quote]
You're muddling definitions again. If a stereotype is a prior, then it only swamps all other sensory datapoints when the prior is extremely strong. I've already said that having an irrationally strong prior based on skin color and not conditioning on new data effectively is arguably what defines a racist. You're going back to the classic Frequentist point that "priors are sometimes misapplied, therefore they shouldn't be used." Which I disagree with. If priors are sometimes misapplied, the solution is to be aware, disciplined, and critical of your priors (i.e. be informed and challenge your beliefs). It isn't to stick your head in the sand and apply a flat prior to everything (i.e. assigning equal probability of winning to both players in the Mahjong scenario). or the solution is to use non-racist priors. if you come up to me in tattered clothes without shoes and without having showered for several days there are several priors there, none of them race-based, that condition my response. as ive said repeatedly, how you decide which information to condition your prior is always unjustifiable and faith-based. choosing to use race to condition your prior is racist. i expect you'll say something like "ideally you include all the data," at which point i say, get real, thats not how stereotypes work, the whole premise here was that it's an efficiency shortcut, and then you waffle around a bit with more abstractions while accusing me of conflating definitions etc. luckily i am not a proponent of thought crime so in your mahjong scenario its not a big deal to keep your thoughts on the likelihood of who is a better mahjong player to yourself. but if you went up and said, "hey i bet you could beat this white person here at mahjong," you'd be doing something racist. likewise if you got on the train in chicago and treated a bunch of black people going about their business like potential criminals you'd be doing something racist (and irrational). Yeah? And how many of those are left in the wake of the ever-expanding definition of racism? quite a lot. reality is pretty complex. sorry you cant use "black man" as the determinative prior anymore. Horseshit. The whole problem here is that our SJW friends cry racism/sexism/whatever every time there is anything resembling a disparate impact. They won't allow a color blind society. So long as certain races are suffering from the consequences of segregation and the like, we have no reason to move on. Only once there are no longer any systematic, race-specific struggles, does it make sense to see the world as colorless. Do you think it should be a goal of society to undo the damage done by slavery and segregation? All I know is that Republicans and the Right are called racists whenever we dare point out that maybe black communities have some problems of their own making, even if we start offering some solutions to those problems. The reductive part is that you think you are some truth tellers for saying that. Do you know who knows that black communities have problems of their own making? Black communities. They didn't need your help. But if black people turn around and say “woah there, get your racist white people under control,” there is a resounding uproar from the Right. And then something about gang violence or some shit. What racist white people are there to get under control? Those fools in Charlottesville? What do several thousand white supremacists have to do with the shitshow that is inner city Chicago or any of the other places where the black population is suffering in poverty? Clearly nothing. Blaming "racism" in perpetuity isn't a solution for anything -- and particularly not the demographic disaster that black people are experiencing. Are you saying that you think if these blacks immigrated to Chicago in the same way all of our European immigrants did, we would have the same issue? Do you think that, without slavery and segregation, we would still be in the same place?
The argument has never been that slavery and segregation had no adverse impact upon the black population. They clearly did. The issue has always been what we should do about it. We are 150 years out from the abolition of slavery. We are 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action policies have been in place for decades. What more is reasonably needed in terms of governmental intervention?
|
United States41995 Posts
On August 18 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:56 IgnE wrote:On August 18 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:47 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
or the solution is to use non-racist priors. if you come up to me in tattered clothes without shoes and without having showered for several days there are several priors there, none of them race-based, that condition my response. as ive said repeatedly, how you decide which information to condition your prior is always unjustifiable and faith-based. choosing to use race to condition your prior is racist. i expect you'll say something like "ideally you include all the data," at which point i say, get real, thats not how stereotypes work, the whole premise here was that it's an efficiency shortcut, and then you waffle around a bit with more abstractions while accusing me of conflating definitions etc.
luckily i am not a proponent of thought crime so in your mahjong scenario its not a big deal to keep your thoughts on the likelihood of who is a better mahjong player to yourself. but if you went up and said, "hey i bet you could beat this white person here at mahjong," you'd be doing something racist. likewise if you got on the train in chicago and treated a bunch of black people going about their business like potential criminals you'd be doing something racist (and irrational).
Yeah? And how many of those are left in the wake of the ever-expanding definition of racism? quite a lot. reality is pretty complex. sorry you cant use "black man" as the determinative prior anymore. Horseshit. The whole problem here is that our SJW friends cry racism/sexism/whatever every time there is anything resembling a disparate impact. They won't allow a color blind society. So long as certain races are suffering from the consequences of segregation and the like, we have no reason to move on. Only once there are no longer any systematic, race-specific struggles, does it make sense to see the world as colorless. Do you think it should be a goal of society to undo the damage done by slavery and segregation? All I know is that Republicans and the Right are called racists whenever we dare point out that maybe black communities have some problems of their own making, even if we start offering some solutions to those problems. The reductive part is that you think you are some truth tellers for saying that. Do you know who knows that black communities have problems of their own making? Black communities. They didn't need your help. But if black people turn around and say “woah there, get your racist white people under control,” there is a resounding uproar from the Right. And then something about gang violence or some shit. What racist white people are there to get under control? Those fools in Charlottesville? What do several thousand white supremacists have to do with the shitshow that is inner city Chicago or any of the other places where the black population is suffering in poverty? Clearly nothing. Blaming "racism" in perpetuity isn't a solution for anything -- and particularly not the demographic disaster that black people are experiencing. Are you saying that you think if these blacks immigrated to Chicago in the same way all of our European immigrants did, we would have the same issue? Do you think that, without slavery and segregation, we would still be in the same place? The argument has never been that slavery and segregation had no adverse impact upon the black population. They clearly did. The issue has always been what we should do about it. We are 150 years out from the abolition of slavery. We are 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action policies have been in place for decades. What more is reasonably needed in terms of governmental intervention?
You could try letting blacks in Alabama vote?
|
On August 18 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:56 IgnE wrote:On August 18 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:47 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
or the solution is to use non-racist priors. if you come up to me in tattered clothes without shoes and without having showered for several days there are several priors there, none of them race-based, that condition my response. as ive said repeatedly, how you decide which information to condition your prior is always unjustifiable and faith-based. choosing to use race to condition your prior is racist. i expect you'll say something like "ideally you include all the data," at which point i say, get real, thats not how stereotypes work, the whole premise here was that it's an efficiency shortcut, and then you waffle around a bit with more abstractions while accusing me of conflating definitions etc.
luckily i am not a proponent of thought crime so in your mahjong scenario its not a big deal to keep your thoughts on the likelihood of who is a better mahjong player to yourself. but if you went up and said, "hey i bet you could beat this white person here at mahjong," you'd be doing something racist. likewise if you got on the train in chicago and treated a bunch of black people going about their business like potential criminals you'd be doing something racist (and irrational).
Yeah? And how many of those are left in the wake of the ever-expanding definition of racism? quite a lot. reality is pretty complex. sorry you cant use "black man" as the determinative prior anymore. Horseshit. The whole problem here is that our SJW friends cry racism/sexism/whatever every time there is anything resembling a disparate impact. They won't allow a color blind society. So long as certain races are suffering from the consequences of segregation and the like, we have no reason to move on. Only once there are no longer any systematic, race-specific struggles, does it make sense to see the world as colorless. Do you think it should be a goal of society to undo the damage done by slavery and segregation? All I know is that Republicans and the Right are called racists whenever we dare point out that maybe black communities have some problems of their own making, even if we start offering some solutions to those problems. The reductive part is that you think you are some truth tellers for saying that. Do you know who knows that black communities have problems of their own making? Black communities. They didn't need your help. But if black people turn around and say “woah there, get your racist white people under control,” there is a resounding uproar from the Right. And then something about gang violence or some shit. What racist white people are there to get under control? Those fools in Charlottesville? What do several thousand white supremacists have to do with the shitshow that is inner city Chicago or any of the other places where the black population is suffering in poverty? Clearly nothing. Blaming "racism" in perpetuity isn't a solution for anything -- and particularly not the demographic disaster that black people are experiencing. Are you saying that you think if these blacks immigrated to Chicago in the same way all of our European immigrants did, we would have the same issue? Do you think that, without slavery and segregation, we would still be in the same place? The argument has never been that slavery and segregation had no adverse impact upon the black population. They clearly did. The issue has always been what we should do about it. We are 150 years out from the abolition of slavery. We are 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action policies have been in place for decades. What more is reasonably needed in terms of governmental intervention?
We could stop making laws that are meant to disenfranchise minorities (examples being the NC voter ID law)
|
On August 18 2017 03:25 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:56 IgnE wrote:On August 18 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah? And how many of those are left in the wake of the ever-expanding definition of racism? quite a lot. reality is pretty complex. sorry you cant use "black man" as the determinative prior anymore. Horseshit. The whole problem here is that our SJW friends cry racism/sexism/whatever every time there is anything resembling a disparate impact. They won't allow a color blind society. So long as certain races are suffering from the consequences of segregation and the like, we have no reason to move on. Only once there are no longer any systematic, race-specific struggles, does it make sense to see the world as colorless. Do you think it should be a goal of society to undo the damage done by slavery and segregation? All I know is that Republicans and the Right are called racists whenever we dare point out that maybe black communities have some problems of their own making, even if we start offering some solutions to those problems. The reductive part is that you think you are some truth tellers for saying that. Do you know who knows that black communities have problems of their own making? Black communities. They didn't need your help. But if black people turn around and say “woah there, get your racist white people under control,” there is a resounding uproar from the Right. And then something about gang violence or some shit. What racist white people are there to get under control? Those fools in Charlottesville? What do several thousand white supremacists have to do with the shitshow that is inner city Chicago or any of the other places where the black population is suffering in poverty? Clearly nothing. Blaming "racism" in perpetuity isn't a solution for anything -- and particularly not the demographic disaster that black people are experiencing. Are you saying that you think if these blacks immigrated to Chicago in the same way all of our European immigrants did, we would have the same issue? Do you think that, without slavery and segregation, we would still be in the same place? The argument has never been that slavery and segregation had no adverse impact upon the black population. They clearly did. The issue has always been what we should do about it. We are 150 years out from the abolition of slavery. We are 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action policies have been in place for decades. What more is reasonably needed in terms of governmental intervention? We could stop making laws that are meant to disenfranchise minorities (examples being the NC voter ID law)
Ok, let's just presume that one's done. Then what?
|
United States41995 Posts
On August 18 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 03:25 IyMoon wrote:On August 18 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:56 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
quite a lot. reality is pretty complex. sorry you cant use "black man" as the determinative prior anymore.
Horseshit. The whole problem here is that our SJW friends cry racism/sexism/whatever every time there is anything resembling a disparate impact. They won't allow a color blind society. So long as certain races are suffering from the consequences of segregation and the like, we have no reason to move on. Only once there are no longer any systematic, race-specific struggles, does it make sense to see the world as colorless. Do you think it should be a goal of society to undo the damage done by slavery and segregation? All I know is that Republicans and the Right are called racists whenever we dare point out that maybe black communities have some problems of their own making, even if we start offering some solutions to those problems. The reductive part is that you think you are some truth tellers for saying that. Do you know who knows that black communities have problems of their own making? Black communities. They didn't need your help. But if black people turn around and say “woah there, get your racist white people under control,” there is a resounding uproar from the Right. And then something about gang violence or some shit. What racist white people are there to get under control? Those fools in Charlottesville? What do several thousand white supremacists have to do with the shitshow that is inner city Chicago or any of the other places where the black population is suffering in poverty? Clearly nothing. Blaming "racism" in perpetuity isn't a solution for anything -- and particularly not the demographic disaster that black people are experiencing. Are you saying that you think if these blacks immigrated to Chicago in the same way all of our European immigrants did, we would have the same issue? Do you think that, without slavery and segregation, we would still be in the same place? The argument has never been that slavery and segregation had no adverse impact upon the black population. They clearly did. The issue has always been what we should do about it. We are 150 years out from the abolition of slavery. We are 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action policies have been in place for decades. What more is reasonably needed in terms of governmental intervention? We could stop making laws that are meant to disenfranchise minorities (examples being the NC voter ID law) Ok, let's just presume that one's done. Then what?
You could try letting the justice department investigate disparate treatment of minorities by police departments instead of painting it as a battle between "law abiding society" and "thugs" the way they did in MLK's day?
|
On August 18 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 03:25 IyMoon wrote:On August 18 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:56 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
quite a lot. reality is pretty complex. sorry you cant use "black man" as the determinative prior anymore.
Horseshit. The whole problem here is that our SJW friends cry racism/sexism/whatever every time there is anything resembling a disparate impact. They won't allow a color blind society. So long as certain races are suffering from the consequences of segregation and the like, we have no reason to move on. Only once there are no longer any systematic, race-specific struggles, does it make sense to see the world as colorless. Do you think it should be a goal of society to undo the damage done by slavery and segregation? All I know is that Republicans and the Right are called racists whenever we dare point out that maybe black communities have some problems of their own making, even if we start offering some solutions to those problems. The reductive part is that you think you are some truth tellers for saying that. Do you know who knows that black communities have problems of their own making? Black communities. They didn't need your help. But if black people turn around and say “woah there, get your racist white people under control,” there is a resounding uproar from the Right. And then something about gang violence or some shit. What racist white people are there to get under control? Those fools in Charlottesville? What do several thousand white supremacists have to do with the shitshow that is inner city Chicago or any of the other places where the black population is suffering in poverty? Clearly nothing. Blaming "racism" in perpetuity isn't a solution for anything -- and particularly not the demographic disaster that black people are experiencing. Are you saying that you think if these blacks immigrated to Chicago in the same way all of our European immigrants did, we would have the same issue? Do you think that, without slavery and segregation, we would still be in the same place? The argument has never been that slavery and segregation had no adverse impact upon the black population. They clearly did. The issue has always been what we should do about it. We are 150 years out from the abolition of slavery. We are 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action policies have been in place for decades. What more is reasonably needed in terms of governmental intervention? We could stop making laws that are meant to disenfranchise minorities (examples being the NC voter ID law) Ok, let's just presume that one's done. Then what?
Well there are all those black people in prison from the war on drugs and three strikes rules that were terrible. We should get rid of those and reform the prison system.
Oh yeah. All police now have to report to a federal data base when you use lethal force. And create an independent oversight group for police across the country.
And restore the voters rights act. And job training for recently released inmates.
|
Making sure education is great for every kid, not just those living in nice neighborhoods and for those who can afford going to university. Education should be the main weapon for making society more fair and equitable.
|
Oh yeah, reform the US education system and update the lesion plans to require more focus on the civil war, slavery and reconstruction. And better education on the post reconstruction era.
|
On August 18 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 02:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:56 IgnE wrote:On August 18 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 01:47 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
or the solution is to use non-racist priors. if you come up to me in tattered clothes without shoes and without having showered for several days there are several priors there, none of them race-based, that condition my response. as ive said repeatedly, how you decide which information to condition your prior is always unjustifiable and faith-based. choosing to use race to condition your prior is racist. i expect you'll say something like "ideally you include all the data," at which point i say, get real, thats not how stereotypes work, the whole premise here was that it's an efficiency shortcut, and then you waffle around a bit with more abstractions while accusing me of conflating definitions etc.
luckily i am not a proponent of thought crime so in your mahjong scenario its not a big deal to keep your thoughts on the likelihood of who is a better mahjong player to yourself. but if you went up and said, "hey i bet you could beat this white person here at mahjong," you'd be doing something racist. likewise if you got on the train in chicago and treated a bunch of black people going about their business like potential criminals you'd be doing something racist (and irrational).
Yeah? And how many of those are left in the wake of the ever-expanding definition of racism? quite a lot. reality is pretty complex. sorry you cant use "black man" as the determinative prior anymore. Horseshit. The whole problem here is that our SJW friends cry racism/sexism/whatever every time there is anything resembling a disparate impact. They won't allow a color blind society. So long as certain races are suffering from the consequences of segregation and the like, we have no reason to move on. Only once there are no longer any systematic, race-specific struggles, does it make sense to see the world as colorless. Do you think it should be a goal of society to undo the damage done by slavery and segregation? All I know is that Republicans and the Right are called racists whenever we dare point out that maybe black communities have some problems of their own making, even if we start offering some solutions to those problems. The reductive part is that you think you are some truth tellers for saying that. Do you know who knows that black communities have problems of their own making? Black communities. They didn't need your help. But if black people turn around and say “woah there, get your racist white people under control,” there is a resounding uproar from the Right. And then something about gang violence or some shit. What racist white people are there to get under control? Those fools in Charlottesville? What do several thousand white supremacists have to do with the shitshow that is inner city Chicago or any of the other places where the black population is suffering in poverty? Clearly nothing. Blaming "racism" in perpetuity isn't a solution for anything -- and particularly not the demographic disaster that black people are experiencing. Are you saying that you think if these blacks immigrated to Chicago in the same way all of our European immigrants did, we would have the same issue? Do you think that, without slavery and segregation, we would still be in the same place? The argument has never been that slavery and segregation had no adverse impact upon the black population. They clearly did. The issue has always been what we should do about it. We are 150 years out from the abolition of slavery. We are 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action policies have been in place for decades. What more is reasonably needed in terms of governmental intervention?
You and other folks keep referencing these numbers like their a big deal. You know who was alive 150 Years ago? My great grandfather, and likely alot of other folks' great grand parents. Both my parents and grandparents were alive 50 years ago. Millennials are the first generation that truly hasn't had to deal with the overt, life threatening racism and you act like its so far removed.
|
United States41995 Posts
Commission a large scale national study into race as a factor relating to judicial outcomes that compares large numbers of cases and can give us real statistical evidence into disparate outcomes. Throw in some mock trials for juries to judge with different defendants, play around with various variables, age, race, location, sex, and so forth.
|
End the practice of jailing people for being unable to pay court costs or fees associated with criminal charges. And pay day lending.
|
On August 18 2017 03:38 Plansix wrote:
End the practice of jailing people for being unable to pay court costs or fees associated with criminal charges. And pay day lending.
????
I thought court costs are provided to anyone unable to afford them? Including attorneys.
|
|
|
United States41995 Posts
|
@everyone talking to me
i think 1) its possible to examine a racist and reprehensible set of tenets and try to imagine what motivates such beliefs and what, if anything, is "true" in it (i dont want to get into a discussion about the true at this point so just bracket it)
2) given that communication across interpretive communities is difficult (or stanley fish would say impossible) it seems there is at least some requirement for a shared set of assumptions amongst a society
3) if we think about the sacred and the profane and the metaphysical ordering of society according to hierarchies (with sacrifice, chance, market meritocracy, whatever) it seems to follow that without a consensus on the sacred that societal hierarchy will be destabilized along with the state itself. so when xdaunt says thay society must share some set of assumptions hes not wrong, even if hes wrong about many other things related to that question
4) therefore the questions, "what must be repressed/disciplined in order for society to continue," "what kind of society is possible," "what does individual liberty in society mean?" are all important questions. therefore my approach here is: these fundamentalists are "crazy" in the sense of unintelligible, xdaunt is, as far as i can tell, able to participate in common discourse, so what is the difference between him and cantwell?
5) and for the record, im not even as convinced as all of you seem to be that antifa "goes too far" and is fundamentally wrong in their approach. it seems possible that antifa's tactics are the only effective way to combat real nazi activism. how does society deal with violence? how should it deal with violence? but then i don't think xdaunt or danglars are nazis, even if they are very wrong about many things.
6) do any of you even think there is a difference between cantwell from the vice video and the terrorist who killed people with his car? i think there is a difference there
|
On August 18 2017 03:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 03:38 Plansix wrote:
End the practice of jailing people for being unable to pay court costs or fees associated with criminal charges. And pay day lending. ???? I thought court costs are provided to anyone unable to afford them? Including attorneys.
Let's not even get into bail, and how it causes people to fall into debt to for-profit bail loan companies, plead guilty to avoid jail, or spend years in jail before even getting a trial.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html
Oh, also probation. People released on probation often end up under the oversight of a for-profit probation company, and have to pay fees associated with that.
Being poor in this country is ruinous if you have to interact with the legal system.
|
We need criminal justice reform so badly in this country. But there are so many politicians that want to be “tough on crime” despite have the largest prison population in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
