|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 27 2019 08:26 Simberto wrote:
You come in here and just assume that everyone you are talking to are the enemy. You don't try to understand their position, or even find out what it is.
You didn't even try to make an argument, or describe a position you have. You just said that we would all disagree (and now you have come to the conclusion that people that you have basically no information whatsoever about are the "winners" of globalisation.)
At least wait for people to disagree before trying to preemptively fight them. Maybe you would find some people agreeing with you. Especially if you made good arguments. But of course it is easier to just assume everyone is already biased against you, that removes the requirement of actually making an argument, because those people who are biased wouldn't listen anyways.
Try arguing with real people, not with the images of those people that you produce in your head before talking to them. You might get surprised. And even if not, at least you will not be discussing with yourself.
It's weird that you see that and I see them addressing multiple arguments put forth here already and preemptively shutting down the most common retorts.
Most of what they say is pretty well documented and not especially disputed beyond by the people they are talking about.
|
On January 27 2019 08:12 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2019 06:50 Artisreal wrote:
Hey man, no offense, but you come in here saying you're interested how people of this thread will justify police violence. This makes me think you've never ever read this thread consciously before and that's why I asked for some more context.
And a single video, shocking as it is, wouldn't make for a compelling argument for police violence, insofar what Nyxisto said is, according to my reading of his post, to be interpreted not as an accusation directed at you, but more of a general statement that relying on a single piece of information to form an opinion / judge a situation might in some cases not be the best of ideas.
My sympathies obviously go out to this person who might have lost any eye, seriously damaged it or even if he's fine, being attacked by police forces while excerting one's right to protest is nothing you want to have happen to you (I know from experience unfortunately).
Most of all, I don't understand why you'd think people would want to justify that???
e: oh and that you're providing some more information instead of posting a video and a one liner is a tremendous improvement to your previous post.
And to be precise, of fucking course the culprit should be held accountable.
For sure, you need the 360 angles in order to prove the agression.As for your question... Well, this demonstration is basically an opposition to austerity politicies and to you, the "winners" of globalization so in opposition to the ones which defend it who are dominant in this forum. Indeed it is a demonstration for social rights which is not led by the upper class. So its targets are social inequality and the privilege of the richest.
Where did you get that impression from? What I tried to say is that this first video you linked just showed a man on the ground with a bleeding eye. Everything in French, which I fortunately am able to read a bit.
You did not even pose any question but went in with a statement of the like "yall gonna justify this, fuckers!"
And then you bash liberals, which ususally are a bit more critical of police violence than conservatives or right wingers according to my political barometer (please correct me here guys, I'm trying not to go so much with the labelling trends so much these days).
I just said that this first post of yours was rather weak and you appear to have remedied that, a bit at least. Although, as others pointed out, you seem to see everyone as enemies, even though you clearly have no idea about their respective political affiliations an opinions on police violence.
It is not about the specific interest of a community but for "everyone". Thus, it can only be associated with populism (yellow jackets have been associated with racism, antisemetism and some shits like those, well, considering its spontaneous nature, there are always fascists elements but overall, I would call the movement republican, almost jacobin) cuz it is in opposition to the racial struggle or any idea of community interests which are valued in liberal society. Basically, they pretended to represent the people, not a part of society, hence it's universal (at least, in principles).
It is rather common to see political groups use a civil movement to foster their ideology. Just take Nazis trying to lure unknowing people into their ranks by purportedly aiming to protect nature (living space for the good race).
I wouldnt be suprised to find any group that in essence has nothing to do with the movement trying to ride the wave.
And did you read the comments when this sort of accident happen? On TL, the mods makes it more civil and polite, but overall, everything is done to justify the repression "well done", "it's deserved" and the traditionnal "dunno the context" and "fake news" "he should have not been here" are the general answers hence why I don't bother to publish like Thedwf all the violences. (and for the record, there are indeed fake news which could crush all the argues)
There's a reason why you don't read specific comment sections. I think hardly anyone you're conversing with HERE, as you may have hinted at as well, is of that opinion.
|
The point about the footage is basically twofold. On the one hand there's the immediate crime, which is police abusing their power and using excessive force. Everybody who has been in this thread will condemn police violence so this is trivial and not worthy of discussion.
The reason this is being posted is obviously not the situation itself, but the image that is supposed to be invoked. For example "Macron is an oppressive dictator, and punishing civil society with the police" or something like that. And here context is needed, and not just context of the immediate situation. Is it really true that Macron is hunting civil society down with the help of the police? Is there more violence in France than is typical for a protest of this size? Do or did the protesters engage in violence themselves? and so on.
Thing is all of this can be discussed without weaponizing first hand footage which is only used (predominantly on social media) to stir the pot in whatever direction is desired.
|
On January 27 2019 09:18 Nyxisto wrote:
The point about the footage is basically twofold. On the one hand there's the immediate crime, which is police abusing their power and using excessive force. Everybody who has been in this thread will condemn police violence so this is trivial and not worthy of discussion.
The reason this is being posted is obviously not the situation itself, but the image that is supposed to be invoked. For example "Macron is an oppressive dictator, and punishing civil society with the police" or something like that. And here context is needed, and not just context of the immediate situation. Is it really true that Macron is hunting civil society down with the help of the police? Is there more violence in France than is typical for a protest of this size? Do or did the protesters engage in violence themselves? and so on.
Thing is all of this can be discussed without weaponizing first hand footage which is only used (predominantly on social media) to stir the pot in whatever direction is desired.
Granted I'm a dumb Merican I was actually surprised to see France was so brutal with protesters. A lot of the world outlaws teargas being used in war so I didn't expect France to use it on it's own people.
|
On January 27 2019 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2019 09:18 Nyxisto wrote:
The point about the footage is basically twofold. On the one hand there's the immediate crime, which is police abusing their power and using excessive force. Everybody who has been in this thread will condemn police violence so this is trivial and not worthy of discussion.
The reason this is being posted is obviously not the situation itself, but the image that is supposed to be invoked. For example "Macron is an oppressive dictator, and punishing civil society with the police" or something like that. And here context is needed, and not just context of the immediate situation. Is it really true that Macron is hunting civil society down with the help of the police? Is there more violence in France than is typical for a protest of this size? Do or did the protesters engage in violence themselves? and so on.
Thing is all of this can be discussed without weaponizing first hand footage which is only used (predominantly on social media) to stir the pot in whatever direction is desired. Granted I'm a dumb Merican I was actually surprised to see France was so brutal with protesters. A lot of the world outlaws teargas being used in war so I didn't expect France to use it on it's own people. What? Tear gas being used in riots is 'normal' in so far as there is a normal for serious riots, considering how rare they are.
|
On January 27 2019 09:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2019 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2019 09:18 Nyxisto wrote:
The point about the footage is basically twofold. On the one hand there's the immediate crime, which is police abusing their power and using excessive force. Everybody who has been in this thread will condemn police violence so this is trivial and not worthy of discussion.
The reason this is being posted is obviously not the situation itself, but the image that is supposed to be invoked. For example "Macron is an oppressive dictator, and punishing civil society with the police" or something like that. And here context is needed, and not just context of the immediate situation. Is it really true that Macron is hunting civil society down with the help of the police? Is there more violence in France than is typical for a protest of this size? Do or did the protesters engage in violence themselves? and so on.
Thing is all of this can be discussed without weaponizing first hand footage which is only used (predominantly on social media) to stir the pot in whatever direction is desired. Granted I'm a dumb Merican I was actually surprised to see France was so brutal with protesters. A lot of the world outlaws teargas being used in war so I didn't expect France to use it on it's own people. What? Tear gas being used in riots is 'normal' in so far as there is a normal for serious riots, considering how rare they are.
I'm a dumb 'Merican who thought France was intimately aware with WHY it was banned from warfare and how nothing about it changes when dealing with "riots" other than that there is 0 chance it hits a foreign enemy.
|
On January 27 2019 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2019 09:45 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2019 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2019 09:18 Nyxisto wrote:
The point about the footage is basically twofold. On the one hand there's the immediate crime, which is police abusing their power and using excessive force. Everybody who has been in this thread will condemn police violence so this is trivial and not worthy of discussion.
The reason this is being posted is obviously not the situation itself, but the image that is supposed to be invoked. For example "Macron is an oppressive dictator, and punishing civil society with the police" or something like that. And here context is needed, and not just context of the immediate situation. Is it really true that Macron is hunting civil society down with the help of the police? Is there more violence in France than is typical for a protest of this size? Do or did the protesters engage in violence themselves? and so on.
Thing is all of this can be discussed without weaponizing first hand footage which is only used (predominantly on social media) to stir the pot in whatever direction is desired. Granted I'm a dumb Merican I was actually surprised to see France was so brutal with protesters. A lot of the world outlaws teargas being used in war so I didn't expect France to use it on it's own people. What? Tear gas being used in riots is 'normal' in so far as there is a normal for serious riots, considering how rare they are. I'm a dumb 'Merican who thought France was intimately aware with WHY it was banned from warfare and how nothing about it changes when dealing with "riots" other than that there is 0 chance it hits a foreign enemy.
As far as I know tear gas has never been banned for use by police in most places. It's commonly used for riot suppression. UK cops use it too from time to time. Of course there aren't that many riots so you don't see it used often.
The French get rowdy when they riot. I'm not surprised things are getting ugly, given how pissed off everyone is right now.
|
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons.
|
On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons.
I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it.
|
On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it.
I personally only see the wonderful scenarios books like Brave new world portray as solutions to this (indoctrination and thought police). Any system will have problems for some portion of the population with current resource scarcity. Do you have some suggestion on how to change the system to account for all of the population. Or to make a more honest argument, for a much larger fraction?
|
On January 28 2019 07:40 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. I personally only see the wonderful scenarios books like Brave new world portray as solutions to this (indoctrination and thought police). Any system will have problems for some portion of the population with current resource scarcity. Do you have some suggestion on how to change the system to account for all of the population. Or to make a more honest argument, for a much larger fraction?
I would start from by stating my belief that the ~$17,000 per person that is produced globally, distributed more equitably, would benefit us all. I'm actually working on the argument for how it helps rich people too but that's probably not ready for prime time yet so others can assert rich people wouldn't like it if they wish and I can decide what I'll do then.
Are we in agreement so far?
|
On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it.
not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option.
|
On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option.
Like which ones?
|
groups of extremists clashing at a demonstration, violent protesters attacking a refugee home, groups of riled up drunk people after a sports or cultural event, religious groups getting into a fight on the streets, looters after a national emergency etc.., surely you can come up with a whole list of things that can cause groups of people to get very riled up.
|
On January 29 2019 07:16 Nyxisto wrote:
groups of extremists clashing at a demonstration, violent protesters attacking a refugee home, groups of riled up drunk people after a sports or cultural event, religious groups getting into a fight on the streets, looters after a national emergency etc.., surely you can come up with a whole list of things that can cause groups of people to get very riled up.
I was hoping for a (or a couple) specific incidences.
Granted they aren't your typical victims of brutal repression I don't think any of those groups isn't being exploited so I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
|
On January 29 2019 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 07:16 Nyxisto wrote:
groups of extremists clashing at a demonstration, violent protesters attacking a refugee home, groups of riled up drunk people after a sports or cultural event, religious groups getting into a fight on the streets, looters after a national emergency etc.., surely you can come up with a whole list of things that can cause groups of people to get very riled up. I was hoping for a (or a couple) specific incidences. Granted they aren't your typical victims of brutal repression I don't think any of those groups isn't being exploited so I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
the view must be nice from that moral high ground of yours
|
On January 29 2019 07:28 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2019 07:16 Nyxisto wrote:
groups of extremists clashing at a demonstration, violent protesters attacking a refugee home, groups of riled up drunk people after a sports or cultural event, religious groups getting into a fight on the streets, looters after a national emergency etc.., surely you can come up with a whole list of things that can cause groups of people to get very riled up. I was hoping for a (or a couple) specific incidences. Granted they aren't your typical victims of brutal repression I don't think any of those groups isn't being exploited so I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas. the view must be nice from that moral high ground of yours
People tell me it's better from the towers of authoritarian crackdowns, but I prefer it here.
|
Gotta love the logic of antimoralist moralists.
|
I would not classify asking a for a systemic solution as moral high ground but an entirely different question that deals with the problem and not just society's Reaction to the problem.
One could also argue that some of the groups mentioned are marginalised in a way, not comparable to most of the world population but relatively so indeed.
in the European context the use cases given by nyxisto are where tear gas is used, although I don't think many or even any countries keep statistics. This unites us with the US.
A specific instance could be a small fraction of the g8 protests in Hamburg that could hardly be apreciated as political but rather chaotic vandalism for the sake of destruction. You gotta draw the line between destroying stuff as a means of critique and as a simple end in itself.
Edit : worded more according to my impression.
GH's question to me is a different one than whether tear gas can be a justified means to disperse protestor.
|
On January 29 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 04:47 Nyxisto wrote:On January 28 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The talking point is really silly to be honest. Yes, tear gas is banned from warfare but basically because the convention didn't want to compromise on any sort of nerve agent and deemed it safer to just flat-out ban all chemical weapons, and because soldiers might not be able to distinguish tear gas from more dangerous weapons. The reason is not that tear gas as it is used in riot control is somehow exceptionally deadly or whatever that statement is supposed to imply.
As a means of riot control there's not many alternatives to quickly disperse a very riled up crowd without using other rather dangerous tools like water cannons. I'm of the opinion having a society that doesn't exploit/marginalize people to the point they'd face tear gas and water cannons just to be heard is the best alternative, but that's usually not on the table as an option because the people supplying the tear gas and the people it's being used to defend wont allow it. not every riot is some sort of heroic and just gathering by marginalised and exploited people. Some riots turn violent or are even started with the intent of escalating into violence and there needs to be a way to quickly disperse them. Something like tear gas is usually the least bad option. Like which ones?
First of May in germany.
I think addressing the exploitation is a better strategy than manufacturing tear gas.
Not rioting would be another one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
