|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 01 2020 14:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 13:50 Zambrah wrote:
I think that during such serious civil unrest congress should very much remain in session and communicate some plan of action. If Congress appears unwilling or incapable of addressing something as serious as this then why should people ever stop rioting and burning down police stations, etc. etc.
I have a hard time accepting inaction at times like these. Legislation passed quickly in a crisis is why we get things like the Patriot Act. Like congressmen seizing powers from states to force police departments to obey their will. Just imagine Trump having GOP control of both houses, and take ten seconds to think what they would do with powers given during major urban riots. The only thing they should be doing is debating and amending legislation to bring QI back to something reasonable.
That's a very reasonable rebuttal.
What do we do when a mob demands swift action? Even if the action is just, forgoing due process can cause issues. The due process exists for a reason and some of those reasons are in place to make sure we get the best result.
Then again some aspects of the due process may be dated or considered prejudice. A lot of people aren't going to put up with a slow system they see as corrupt. This being said I think progressives advocating change have a duty to understand the nuances of the system that they want to change, so they can decide which particular aspects that are part of the due process are actually inherently unjust, and which aren't.
|
On June 01 2020 14:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 13:50 Zambrah wrote:
I think that during such serious civil unrest congress should very much remain in session and communicate some plan of action. If Congress appears unwilling or incapable of addressing something as serious as this then why should people ever stop rioting and burning down police stations, etc. etc.
I have a hard time accepting inaction at times like these. Legislation passed quickly in a crisis is why we get things like the Patriot Act. Like congressmen seizing powers from states to force police departments to obey their will. Just imagine Trump having GOP control of both houses, and take ten seconds to think what they would do with powers given during major urban riots. The only thing they should be doing is debating and amending legislation to bring QI back to something reasonable.
Excuse me, I'm unfamiliar with the term QI in this context or how the change would be helpful?
|
On June 01 2020 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization. I feel like you should have to give me your icon for that
Hahaha, actually, I thought a bit the same.
|
I don't even know where to begin with this but this tweet comes from China's foreign ministry:
|
On June 01 2020 13:53 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 13:50 Zambrah wrote:
I think that during such serious civil unrest congress should very much remain in session and communicate some plan of action. If Congress appears unwilling or incapable of addressing something as serious as this then why should people ever stop rioting and burning down police stations, etc. etc.
I have a hard time accepting inaction at times like these. What should they do?
I am not a congressman and I am not qualified to draft legislation, they should, however, at the very least appear to hear the public's concerns about the state of our police force and the importance of finding a solution to the needless killing of black people by said police force.
|
On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization.
The dead aren't coming back.
|
China has no history of foreign policies, their country being big enough to keep them occupy. They've been constantly insulting everyone for a few years now. Though for some reasons medias did not care much until very recently. Check wolf warrior diplomacy on google, lots of articles popping up recently.
|
On June 01 2020 20:07 nojok wrote:China has no history of foreign policies, their country being big enough to keep them occupy. They've been constantly insulting everyone for a few years now. Though for some reasons medias did not care much until very recently. Check wolf warrior diplomacy on google, lots of articles popping up recently.
China does have long history of foreign policy, though for many years it was centered on their immediate neighbours: Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, Wietnam, India, Taiwan, Tibet.
|
Osaka27149 Posts
On June 01 2020 19:33 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization. The dead aren't coming back.
That's true, but it isn't one or the other.
|
On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization.
No but it is a mitigating factor, in some cases more than others i guess.
|
On June 01 2020 20:19 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 19:33 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization. The dead aren't coming back. That's true, but it isn't one or the other.
The problem is that for the people rioting it feels that way. This is a core conceit that many in this thread either don't understand or are ignoring when they say there must be some other way. The people rioting wish there were some other way too. They've been told for decades how they're supposed to protest, and how they're supposed to articulate their demands, before anyone will start listening and finally start giving them justice, yet when they do everything they've been told is necessary they get brushed off yet again. Or, you know, murdered by police in some cases. Literally the whole point of the riots is to make people listen to them for the first time, because every time they tried to make their message palatable and convenient for the folks that need to hear it, people used that convenience to ignore it again. Then some folks will unwittingly make their points for them by calling them "vermin" or "the worst of society". There is no ideal way for all of this to go down, that time is past and that's why we're at this stage at all.
|
On June 01 2020 20:19 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 19:33 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization. The dead aren't coming back. That's true, but it isn't one or the other.
Then you're missing the point. One is a result of the other.
|
Osaka27149 Posts
On June 01 2020 20:41 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 20:19 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 01 2020 19:33 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization. The dead aren't coming back. That's true, but it isn't one or the other. Then you're missing the point. One is a result of the other.
No, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The people rationalizing property damage because of the existence of insurance are the ones I take issue with, not the ones rationalizing property damage as a form of protest.
|
I don't think a lot of people here are saying that rioting is really nice and cool (except maybe GH).
My point at least was "Why are we always only talking about rioting, and not about the utterly unjust justice system?". I think that rioting sucks, but is understandable, and that we should focus on the main topic at hand, namely that US police kill way too many people, and are not held responsible for that nearly enough. The US isn't even collecting data on how many people the police kill. That in itself is utterly and completely absurd. Every case where police kills someone should lead to a major investigation by an independent agency by default.
The main focus here should be on reforming the US police. Demilitarization, accountability, a new focus on "serve and protect (the citizens)", not "serve and protect yourself"
|
On June 01 2020 20:52 Simberto wrote:
I don't think a lot of people here are saying that rioting is really nice and cool (except maybe GH).
My point at least was "Why are we always only talking about rioting, and not about the utterly unjust justice system?". I think that rioting sucks, but is understandable, and that we should focus on the main topic at hand, namely that US police kill way too many people, and are not held responsible for that nearly enough. The US isn't even collecting data on how many people the police kill. That in itself is utterly and completely absurd. Every case where police kills someone should lead to a major investigation by an independent agency by default.
The main focus here should be on reforming the US police. Demilitarization, accountability, a new focus on "serve and protect (the citizens)", not "serve and protect yourself"
Despite what people may believe I too believe uprisings suck. People suffer, wealth is lost, we destroy our lands, etc. They are a measure of last resort. There's a confluence of factors leading to what we're seeing now. If it were just systemic racist violence by police spurring these actions, they wouldn't be a fraction as massive/radical.
That they refuse to even do something as basic as arrest the accomplices in this murder while others call for a more detailed treatise of requests before progress can be made (congress just goes on vacation) is emblematic of just how badly people from all walks are failing to grasp the size and significance of this moment imo.
Having a competent government capable of meeting the needs of it's people (and adjust in a reasonable amount of time) is much more preferable than having to take to the streets risking life and limb just to get what the constitution already promises us.
It's part of what is so infuriatingly insulting when people ignorantly propose that others pursue an unspecified or demonstratively ineffective strategy instead.
|
On June 01 2020 20:45 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 20:41 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 20:19 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 01 2020 19:33 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization. The dead aren't coming back. That's true, but it isn't one or the other. Then you're missing the point. One is a result of the other. No, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The people rationalizing property damage because of the existence of insurance are the ones I take issue with, not the ones rationalizing property damage as a form of protest.
The problem ultimately lies with the people starting the material goods argument. Pointing out how tragic it is that some businesses are losing some private property, instead of how tragic it is that way too many people are losing loved ones. Insurance isn't some magic wand that makes it like it never happened, people know that. The problem is that material goods can be replaced, and the people killed by police can't.
|
On June 01 2020 20:52 Simberto wrote:
I don't think a lot of people here are saying that rioting is really nice and cool (except maybe GH).
My point at least was "Why are we always only talking about rioting, and not about the utterly unjust justice system?". I think that rioting sucks, but is understandable, and that we should focus on the main topic at hand, namely that US police kill way too many people, and are not held responsible for that nearly enough. The US isn't even collecting data on how many people the police kill. That in itself is utterly and completely absurd. Every case where police kills someone should lead to a major investigation by an independent agency by default.
The main focus here should be on reforming the US police. Demilitarization, accountability, a new focus on "serve and protect (the citizens)", not "serve and protect yourself"
And because more than 60 years of lobbying have lead to very little, it is absolutely understandable that people resort to violence.
In my opinion, just like with climate change, we will have to endure some damages to life and property of the ruling class before the danger of the status quo for society will be accepted.
|
On June 01 2020 21:06 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 20:52 Simberto wrote:
I don't think a lot of people here are saying that rioting is really nice and cool (except maybe GH).
My point at least was "Why are we always only talking about rioting, and not about the utterly unjust justice system?". I think that rioting sucks, but is understandable, and that we should focus on the main topic at hand, namely that US police kill way too many people, and are not held responsible for that nearly enough. The US isn't even collecting data on how many people the police kill. That in itself is utterly and completely absurd. Every case where police kills someone should lead to a major investigation by an independent agency by default.
The main focus here should be on reforming the US police. Demilitarization, accountability, a new focus on "serve and protect (the citizens)", not "serve and protect yourself" And because more than 60 years of lobbying have lead to very little, it is absolutely understandable that people resort to violence. In my opinion, just like with climate change, we will have to endure some damages to life and property of the ruling class before the danger of the status quo for society will be accepted.
It's as simple as "do the thing you'd rather people be doing other than uprising demonstrating its effectiveness, support the uprising, or be quiet" really. The people doing the work don't want, need, or have use for the critiques of those who forced their hand and sit idle while yelling at the players in the game from the crowd.
|
On June 01 2020 20:45 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 20:41 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 20:19 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 01 2020 19:33 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization. The dead aren't coming back. That's true, but it isn't one or the other. Then you're missing the point. One is a result of the other. No, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The people rationalizing property damage because of the existence of insurance are the ones I take issue with, not the ones rationalizing property damage as a form of protest.
They're basically the same argument as I've seen it and said it in this thread. Insurance is brought up because at least property damage can be fixed, you can't go to a company and have them reinsert someone's soul into their corpse. Rioting is obviously not a first choice to solve problems but it starts to look appealing as a tenth choice, and going all "those poor businesses!" looks pretty callous when it's in response to decades of police brutality.
|
On June 01 2020 21:19 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 20:45 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 01 2020 20:41 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 20:19 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 01 2020 19:33 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 13:23 Manifesto7 wrote:
All this talk about insurance, but you still have to put in the time, energy, and money up front to get things open again. "They have insurance" isn't a legitimate rationalization. The dead aren't coming back. That's true, but it isn't one or the other. Then you're missing the point. One is a result of the other. No, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The people rationalizing property damage because of the existence of insurance are the ones I take issue with, not the ones rationalizing property damage as a form of protest. They're basically the same argument as I've seen it and said it in this thread. Insurance is brought up because at least property damage can be fixed, you can't go to a company and have them reinsert someone's soul into their corpse. Rioting is obviously not a first choice to solve problems but it starts to look appealing as a tenth choice, and going all "those poor businesses!" looks pretty callous when it's in response to decades of police brutality. Because its trying to redirect the conversation. By talking about property damage or how protests shouldn't be violent you don't have to talk about the fact that nothing seems to work to hold police accountable for killing people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
