| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24137 Posts
Seems like we could agree on police unions (especially this one) being shit organizations that protect criminal/untrustworthy law enforcement. The deputies have been identified as potential witnesses in more than 62,000 felony cases since 2000, according to a Times analysis of district attorney records. In many of those cases, the deputies’ misconduct would probably have been relevant in assessing their credibility. That sounds like a pretty massive miscarriage of justice to me. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 10 2017 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Seems like we could agree on police unions (especially this one) being shit organizations that protect criminal/untrustworthy law enforcement. And juries trusting too much in officers feeling threatened to justify outright murder. Yes. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24137 Posts
On December 10 2017 17:40 Danglars wrote: And juries trusting too much in officers feeling threatened to justify outright murder. Yes. It sounds like you don't think this a type of problem limited to this particular department. Am I gauging that correctly? How would you like to see issues like this addressed? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 10 2017 18:06 GreenHorizons wrote: It sounds like you don't think this a type of problem limited to this particular department. Am I gauging that correctly? How would you like to see issues like this addressed? I’ve seen enough stories to know other counties should put ah for body cameras. It depends on what you mean. Philando castile would be another I’d say in “a type of problem” like the previous. The public response has been huge. I want more officer training for containing possible active shooter situations without harming or opening themselves up to harm. I’m still open to ideas on good responses societally, culturally, and legally. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24137 Posts
On December 10 2017 18:14 Danglars wrote: I’ve seen enough stories to know other counties should put ah for body cameras. It depends on what you mean. Philando castile would be another I’d say in “a type of problem” like the previous. The public response has been huge. I want more officer training for containing possible active shooter situations without harming or opening themselves up to harm. I’m still open to ideas on good responses societally, culturally, and legally. Is there not a deeper issue beyond cameras that needs to be addressed about the culture of police departments and unions protecting criminals among them? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22463 Posts
Bodycamera's can only help if what they are doing is actually against the law. Step 1 is to set up strict federal guidelines about what force an officer can use, and push the treshhold for lethal force way above 'feeling threatened'. Then retrain the entire US police force to properly deal with threatening situations other then 'empty a clip in then'. This would probably require trying to hire a lot of outside police to do the training. And then strictly enforce step 1. Oh and probably increase pay a lot so you get actual people and not just the bottom of the barrel applying. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
That seemed to me like a really insightful article, which explains why US support for Israel is key to letting Israel get away with things. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
On December 10 2017 19:53 Grumbels wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/16/the-real-reason-the-israel-palestine-peace-process-always-fails That seemed to me like a really insightful article, which explains why US support for Israel is key to letting Israel get away with things. Thats not at all what the article asserts. Its a pretty good article but it says that the fallback position of the status quo is preferable to almost any peace deal that the Palestinians will acept. That a two state solution (or a three state solution with Jordan getting the west bank and egypt taking gaza) is the only way forward as Isreal wants a jewish majority state. That there is no real reason for Isreal to not keep the status quo and the western nations (not the US) refuse to make Israels fallback position in negotiations any less preferable to them. Specifically this. Until the US and Europe formulate a strategy to make Israel’s circumstances less desirable than the concessions it would make in a peace agreement, they will shoulder responsibility for the oppressive military regime they continue to preserve and fund. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Third, this type of recklessness and falsity is now a clear and highly disturbing trend – one could say a constant – when it comes to reporting on Trump, Russia and WikiLeaks. I have spent a good part of the last year documenting the extraordinarily numerous, consequential and reckless stories that have been published – and then corrected, rescinded and retracted – by major media outlets when it comes to this story. All media outlets, of course, will make mistakes. The Intercept certainly has made our share, as have all outlets. And it’s particularly natural, inevitable, for mistakes to be made on a highly complicated, opaque story like the question of the relationship between Trump and the Russians, and questions relating to how WikiLeaks obtained DNC and Podesta emails. That is all to be expected. But what one should expect with journalistic “mistakes” is that they sometimes go in one direction, and other times go in the other direction. That’s exactly what has not happened here. Virtually every false story published goes only in one direction: to be as inflammatory and damaging as possible on the Trump/Russia story and about Russia particularly. At some point, once “mistakes” all start going in the same direction, toward advancing the same agenda, they cease looking like mistakes. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On December 11 2017 00:22 Sermokala wrote: Thats not at all what the article asserts. Its a pretty good article but it says that the fallback position of the status quo is preferable to almost any peace deal that the Palestinians will acept. That a two state solution (or a three state solution with Jordan getting the west bank and egypt taking gaza) is the only way forward as Isreal wants a jewish majority state. That there is no real reason for Isreal to not keep the status quo and the western nations (not the US) refuse to make Israels fallback position in negotiations any less preferable to them. Specifically this. I don't see how that is different. Israel doesn't want a peace deal where they have to make some concessions, because they are currently comfortable oppressing Palestinians. There is no cost to this, as they are coddled with US patronage. If the US would make support from Israel contingent on some peace deal then Israel would be less comfortable with their actions. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On December 11 2017 00:30 xDaunt wrote: Here is the article that everyone who complains about Trump’s attacks on the media needs to read. One highly relevant excerpt: To be honest, I don't know why people care about Trump's Russia connection. Every politician is bought and paid for, every politician does opposition research, every politician is corrupt. A lot of liberals act like Hillary Clinton being lavishly funded by the Saudi state, and having personal relationships with Egyptian dictators, is perfectly acceptable. But Trump being okay with Russian support for his election is somehow treasonous, even if Trump doesn't actually do anything meaningful to help Russia. This whole scandal is based on a fixation with Russia. Trump can have a paid Turkish agent on his staff, who was literally plotting to kidnap a person under US protection for his Turkish masters, and no one cares because it is not Russia. Trump can make blatant overtures to Saudi-Arabia and Israel and all these #resistance neo-cons like Bill Kristol couldn't care less, but if he even considers not provoking war with Russia by enacting punitive sanctions as retaliation for trivial stuff like Facebook ads or hacking the DNC, then he must be a traitor. Not to mention that the USA constantly meddles in elections (including Russia's), far more than Russia has ever been accused of. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
On December 11 2017 00:35 Grumbels wrote: I don't see how that is different. Israel doesn't want a peace deal where they have to make some concessions, because they are currently comfortable oppressing Palestinians. There is no cost to this, as they are coddled with US patronage. If the US would make support from Israel contingent on some peace deal then Israel would be less comfortable with their actions. The reasons why the US doesn't do it is the same as why Europe doesn't do it. Can you imagine Germany telling Isreal that they need to give land to the Palestinians? Can you see France going to other countries in the euro sphere and pretending its the 18th century again? Would anyone want to show unity with the UK while they seek to leave whatever the EU is to them? I get wanting to pass the buck and get simple answers but you should know better that the middle east is always going to be more complicated. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8270 Posts
It just isn't a proper Christmas party unless you can get blackout drunk and rape women  | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 10 2017 09:38 Jockmcplop wrote: Actually yes, as far as race is tied to skin colour (which this article asserts), I do think racial imagery is arbitrary. If you disagree, I wonder if you could tell me what racial imagery is identical between the people of Siberia and the people of Northern Ireland. You won't find it, because the imagery is cultural. The point the author here was making about whiteness being invisible to white people because they are dominant in white culture is just an obvious statement. The same is true of the dominant group in any culture. The problem I have with this view is that you can use it on race, gender, finger size, eye colour, shit you could pick any attribute of humans that some have in common and build a social constructivist view of the world from it, and they would all be equally wrong. The world doesn't run on race differences. The USA might. There is a particular racial problem in the US I'll admit that. The issue here is that this is generalized to a view about the nature of humans, and the nature of reality, that is just false. Race is only important in so far as it often denotes the likelihood of belonging to a certain culture. There are cultural differences in imagery that are real, they are really real and come from the existence of that culture, with the differences of imagery being dependent upon the nature of the culture. The same cannot be said of skin colour, which is why this article is wrong. Racial imagery as a phenomenon is a mixture of cultural materials with the unique mnemonic processes of the subject. It's not arbitrary. But it is heterogeneous. That is, it's historically and geographically contingent. Your leading criticism here is to rhetorically ask me "what racial imagery is identical between the people of Siberia and the people of Northern Ireland?" Luckily for me, Dyer doesn't claim that racial imagery is a monolithic set of stereotypes that acts homogeneously. He knows, as you say, that "imagery is cultural" (raising the question of what you even mean by "imagery is arbitrary"). This is a clear instance of sloppy thinking on your part. It's as if you didn't read the (very short) article I linked, or as if you assumed your conclusions before beginning. The point, as I understand Dryer, is not so "obvious" as simply saying that "whiteness is invisible to white people" (also keep in mind the essay was written two decades ago). It implies that non-whiteness is hyper-visible. Something you've already said is not true. Yet if, as you seem to be arguing, racial imagery plays only an insignificant role in interactions between people, what does your statement that "it's obvious that whiteness is invisible to white people" even mean? Are you saying that whiteness is invisible, just like blackness or Asian-ness or Pacific Islander-ness, because people don't see race? Then how do we reconcile your admissions that, well "the USA might [see race]" or that there is some "cultural" racial imagery? The "problem" you present is: "that you can use it on race, gender, finger size, eye colour, shit you could pick any attribute of humans that some have in common and build a social constructivist view of the world from it, and they would all be equally wrong." So what does the world run on, exactly? How do you think people perceive each other? Always fresh-eyed, with no historical, cultural, or personal baggage? Always as a unique person fully present to the senses, as a puzzle that needs to be worked out from first principles every time? Maybe this is where the real disagreement comes in, different understandings of phenomenology. Unfortunately I don't think you have an elaborated theory of perception in which racial imagery plays no part, and which substitutes, in a compelling way, for the system assumed here, where racial imagery is omnipresent. Let's take gender imagery, as another example from your list of phenotypic traits (most of which, by the way, can be subsumed under race), which is omnipresent. Surely you recognize that there's a difference in the way women "present" themselves, that this varies across culture, and that it's not necessarily tied to the presence or absence of a Y chromosome? The point is that whiteness becomes the naturalized backdrop across which difference (i.e. the "real" cultural differences you are talking about) plays. What is the Western imagery of "mankind?" What are you really doing when you appeal to the nature of humans or the nature of reality? What is the "nature of humans" that Dyer is denying, in your view? Even if you were essentially white supremacist, and believed that the "dominant culture" in an area should be the norm, in every sense of the word, I don't understand why you would necessarily disagree with the analysis. You would simply disagree with the ethical implications: it's better to pretend that race is simply a "biological given" and that whiteness is a made-up concept, maybe because that improves social cohesion. But even this critical kind of denial involves an "active forgetting" wherein "whiteness" is grasped, considered, and then actively forgotten. The utopianism of the ethnostate is the realization of a post-racial society. Race as a human trait has literally disappeared, because everyone in the community is simply a "human being" with no overlying racial imagery. One could eliminate racial difference right now by dramatically shrinking the category of the "human" itself. What Dyer is doing is critiquing the unconscious, uncritical world-making, or norm construction, that produces a culture where "whiteness" operates totally invisibly. | ||
|
Schmobutzen
Germany284 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 11 2017 00:30 xDaunt wrote: Here is the article that everyone who complains about Trump’s attacks on the media needs to read. One highly relevant excerpt: You're going to have a hard time justifying Trump's attacks on the media when he's the president calling for people to be fired, the media has apologized and fired people when these stories go wrong, and Trump's word is much less credible than the media's. That last part is the most important. Long before the Trump Russia story, Trump said the NFL asked him to reschedule a debate because it was on a Sunday. That didn't happen and it's emblematic of Trump's trustworthiness. What do you trust him on? Do you trust him when he says he doesn't want or need to reap any profit from being in office because he's already rich? It's painfully obvious that Republicans have chosen the wrong guy to get back at the liberal portion of the media, and harmed their own standing in the argument in the process. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 11 2017 00:43 Grumbels wrote: To be honest, I don't know why people care about Trump's Russia connection. Every politician is bought and paid for, every politician does opposition research, every politician is corrupt. A lot of liberals act like Hillary Clinton being lavishly funded by the Saudi state, and having personal relationships with Egyptian dictators, is perfectly acceptable. But Trump being okay with Russian support for his election is somehow treasonous, even if Trump doesn't actually do anything meaningful to help Russia. This whole scandal is based on a fixation with Russia. Trump can have a paid Turkish agent on his staff, who was literally plotting to kidnap a person under US protection for his Turkish masters, and no one cares because it is not Russia. Trump can make blatant overtures to Saudi-Arabia and Israel and all these #resistance neo-cons like Bill Kristol couldn't care less, but if he even considers not provoking war with Russia by enacting punitive sanctions as retaliation for trivial stuff like Facebook ads or hacking the DNC, then he must be a traitor. Not to mention that the USA constantly meddles in elections (including Russia's), far more than Russia has ever been accused of. Consider that the Trump administration wanted to lift sanctions on Russia, and that Flynn allegedly told close associates that he had a private business venture that was going to profit. And consider whether election assistance from a foreign adversary, in exchange for lifting sanctions, would be an unprecedented act of corruption (if it were to be proven true). That is why people care. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12475 Posts
On December 11 2017 05:14 Schmobutzen wrote: I was nodding to jockmcplops answer along, up top the point of Charles Murray. Murray is anything but a racist or a right winger. I've read The Bell Curve and was baffled that this book produced that outcry. If you read or hear his interviews, you will quickly see that grew is a very decent guy, that stumbled into an angry hornets nest, which he and his fellow colleague thought that they were circling, because of their carefullness, but never imagined that those were stimmed hornets nests. You're going to need a little more research on Murray if you don't even think that he's a rightwinger. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9931 Posts
On December 11 2017 05:14 Schmobutzen wrote: I was nodding to jockmcplops answer along, up top the point of Charles Murray. Murray is anything but a racist or a right winger. I've read The Bell Curve and was baffled that this book produced that outcry. If you read or hear his interviews, you will quickly see that grew is a very decent guy, that stumbled into an angry hornets nest, which he and his fellow colleague thought that they were circling, because of their carefullness, but never imagined that those were stimmed hornets nests. I'll reply to Igne's long post later, but the short answer to this is that the article he posted and Murray's work have one massive thing in common. They attribute to skin colour what they should be attributing to culture. They are confusing skin pigment with cultural phenomena. I can't see how it makes sense to assume that whiteness is innately different from blackness instead of assuming that the culture to which white people are more likely to belong is completely different and encourages different attributes to the cultures that POC probably belong to. Using culture as an explanation instead of skin colour works much better, because you don't have to jump through hoops to explain things you just follow the cultural phenomena and they explain the issue for you. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On December 11 2017 05:37 Jockmcplop wrote: I'll reply to Igne's long post later, but the short answer to this is that the article he posted and Murray's work have one massive thing in common. They attribute to skin colour what they should be attributing to culture. They are confusing skin pigment with cultural phenomena. I can't see how it makes sense to assume that whiteness is innately different from blackness instead of assuming that the culture to which white people are more likely to belong is completely different and encourages different attributes to the cultures that POC probably belong to. Using culture as an explanation instead of skin colour works much better, because you don't have to jump through hoops to explain things you just follow the cultural phenomena and they explain the issue for you. I haven't read the article, but the broader idea of race being a social construct is literally what you're saying right now. | ||
| ||
|
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
