|
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 April 27 2021 05:44 brian wrote:
god i hope the defense attorneys description of events is inaccurate. legitimately just sounds like an execution. ‘sheriffs car blocks Brown in the driveway and police come up shooting’ is fucked.
given the pre emptive state of emergency i’m feeling like it’s probably not.
eh on second thought i can see a case being made that a state of emergency might be needed even in the case that justification (insofar as it is defined legally) is questionable. it’s starting to make me sick to even use the word justify in police murders.
They had 7 deputies resign preemptively after the shooting. So that should tell you that this state of emergency is needed. This was an execution and this video will only make it more true.
|
On April 27 2021 06:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2021 01:50 EnDeR_ wrote:Let me preface my response by saying that I wasn't aware that about 50 police officers lose their lives doing their jobs every year at the hands of armed civilians. I did not realise it was that bad, and probably explains why they are so quick to eliminate the threat as they probably feel constantly under attack. On April 26 2021 05:24 oBlade wrote:
You keep saying "routine traffic stop." It's not routine once they open fire. The two guys we were talking about who got shot after opening fire on the police officer, why did they do that? Because they had warrants out. There are not only so many criminals around, there are so many currently wanted criminals that pulling people over randomly for expired plates in the course of a day, can end up with you pulling over extremely dangerous people without knowing it. Why shoot at cops? Because you don't want to go to jail. Why not flee? Because a high speed chase is extremely stacked against you, whereas pretending to comply until you murder the cop and drive away gives you a way out. I saw the video of someone get pulled over for a tinted window machinegun the officer. I did, however, want to argue this point. The data shows that the majority of police shootings started with the police shooting, not the suspect. In fact, in only about a quarter of cases the suspect fired their gun, according to this study that looked at all police killings in 2015 onlinelibrary.wiley.com. The study is quite nice and includes a lot of data. I extracted the data from the paper so you can see it here: For 10% of the shootings, the suspect was completely unarmed which is kind of crazy. Mostly, people got killed for brandishing their gun/knife and attacking with non-gun weapons. 11 were shot for trying to run away, and 7 people were shot accidentally in 2015, which is a lot in my opinion. Clearly the issue is more with the whole justice system. I do take your point that criminals in the US seem to have less to lose than those in other western democracies, which definitely makes them more likely to shoot at police which exacerbates the problem.
In general, my thoughts are that crime is too widespread. The more dangerous it is for police on a regular basis, and the more they end up in dangerous situations, naturally the more they need training and equipment and tools that are suited for those situations and may misapply those. It increases the variance of everything. And the remedies for crime are education to prepare people for jobs, a strong economy to give them those jobs, arresting criminals, drug interdiction, family, and community.
I agree with most of this, but I still think a bit more emphasis on de-escalation before the situation gets to the pulling out weapons stage would not be amiss. At the end of the day, the narrative that people are getting shot for routine traffic stops while complying with police is just bullshit. Not to say that it absolutely never happens (see: Philando Castille) but it's obviously the rarest example that gets presented as the status quo. It's like Pro-lifers that make an argument against abortion because of late-term abortions when they represent 1% of all abortions. It's nauseating hearing all these uber wealthy celebrities and politicians saying "I have to wonder every day if my child is going to come home tonight or if they are going to be killed by the police." Really? Do their children not know you shouldn't pulled out guns/knives and attack police? Or do they just irrationally believe that their child is likely to be the 1 in a million case that gets killed like Philando Castille? I'm kind of surprised you didn't realize how rough it was for police in the US. Your own numbers show that multiple times a day police are being shot at, having a gun pulled on them, being attacked with knives, etc. Eri is basically the only person in this entire thread that when making a comparison between the US and a country like Norway will also acknowledge that Norway has a lot less violent crime than the US. Everyone else just conveniently neglects to mention that. Comparing the US which has a very weak social safety net to Norway and chalking up the difference in police shootings entirely to the behavior of the police is either ignorant or disingenuous. The best way to reduce police shootings is to reduce poverty, reduce desperation in people, reduce untreated mental illness, etc. But those things cost money.
Have guns drawn on cops?
Gun control.
I agree with your conclusion how to tackle the problem. I don't understand your reasoning that cops aren't killing to many people.
Don't have enough money for the measure?
Have proper VAT, wealth tax, inheritance tax and income tax all over the country and your money problems are solved.
Oh and while your're at it, close them loopholes for amazon and their ilk.
|
|
|
@wombat gets my point. and expands on it.
@LL
+ Show Spoiler +On April 26 2021 23:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 18:08 Doublemint wrote:
Lenin had a name for people being used under false pretenses, and without understanding the whole devious point. don't be that. There's also a word for people who, under false pretenses, ask the question of "what about?" in regards to some foreign devil or other in order to distract from the very real problems in one's own country. "Yes things are bad - but Russia and China are murderous dictatorships!" the saying goes. Then a caricature of the latter countries is propped up to hide the fact that the Western countries being propped up as a paragon of virtue have some serious moral failings of their own. The question of "which is worse/better really?" is often glossed over because few people have the knowledge or inclination to provide nuance to such a point. But it's safe to say that people who uncritically bash those other countries without really evaluating the reality of what life is like there are just lapping up propaganda used to hide the ugly nature of the problems in the Western world. The stagnating economic situation that only serves the wealthy is a good place to start looking if you need some concrete evidence that the Chinese position isn't entirely baseless. Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 20:00 Doublemint wrote: you gave the answer yourself. a quarter does not like the Chauvin verdict. as I see it, that is quite the minority, no?  A quarter of the country looked at an obvious murder-by-police, a case so cut and dry that a large swath of people have no sympathy for the "Black Lives Matter" movement look at this and see it as a bridge too far, and thought that a conviction of the policeman responsible was the wrong decision... and you see that as a good thing?
people can only deal with what is infront of them. and life is anything but dealing with absolutes. so we are comparing relatives here - and relatively speaking - our system of government is (working) better, and not just on paper.
that is what I mean.
the people are a different matter, I am sure the average Chinese person and the average Russian is about as smart and lovely - or brutish and simple - as the next one anywhere else, including any Western country.
btw, if you are modestly wealthy you can live rather nicely just about anywhere in the world, you have to live by certain rules as well... mostly unwritten ones. so that is a low bar to pass imho.
and given that at one point in a not too distant past America was so split into two camps that they would not even agree on the color of the sky, I would say the Chauvin verdict is an open and shut case with just about 25% doing their best Ostrich impressions.
@artisreal
+ Show Spoiler +On April 27 2021 00:33 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 20:11 Doublemint wrote:
yes. I am basically known as the resident white pride guy and he should stop hurting my race's feelings. discussions on the internet are fun.
// the move on part was more specifically for GH. not in general. he should of course NEVER stop fighting for making the American dream his personal dream. racist fucks be damned. the colour of your skin has no relevance for whatever you write. you wrote that he's going too far. which is a thing many people in power have said before, when vacation days were demandend, safety standards were demanded, a 6 then 5 day work week was demanded and finally granted. The call for equality of the people is still being denied as "going too quickly", "going too far". Which is a ridiculous thing to say when Black people are being treated as second or third class citizen now, as they were 40, 50, 60 years ago. And it's undeniably so, that much more progress than actually happened was demanded back in the 50s and even before - maybe GH can point you to a book or two if you're really interested. I would liken the situation if we still had the former Nazi Reich judges presiding over our cases - as they did in the early years of the country that would become this Germany. We would have every right, even the obligation to demand that ALL of the Nazi collaborateur judges be remove immediately, not maybe a token one, two, even half. All of them. Same goes for Black people demanding equality. Not just a bit, for the rich ones, that play popular actors in movies or are good sports personalities. Everyone.
apparently I am unable to convey ideas for some reason, so let's try again.
what I meant to say was that he should move on from (just or mainly) the pointing out of bad stuff - of which there is an overabundance in a fucked up world - and not forget the hope and progress side. GH should never stop fighting for his right and what is right, the day you stop and go the way of (inner) resignation is when you die, little by little.
and what about those nazi judges? last time I checked there are hardly any if any at all are left in GER and AT? but the progress was not an automatism, people fought and protested and screamed out "enough with the bullshit" - 68' student revolts come to mind - and little by little they achieved quite a few of their goals.
they had hope they could change stuff for the better and fought. powered through the setbacks which were plenty as well.
they saw injustice:
judges who served under a terrible regime and sent people to prison or worse with no chance for recourse, and in the name of dear Führer... and those very same judges are in the same position or at least similar position (if they were not top brass they too easily skirted de-nazification). only now active in the CDU/CSU or SPD or another party which took them in after the war was lost. a fact those parties to this day rather not discuss. similar stuff in AT.
nazi judges passing judgement, now under a different set of rules in a free society... imagine how jewish people felt about that. or anyone really with even a shred of integrity.
it took a long while and a ton of resistence to overcome to get them out. some died while still being in office, or getting a nice pension after leaving office I am sure.
I mean, we are not disagreeing on a single thing. either I cannot write for shit you cannot read. mb both.
|
United States10055 Posts
Census numbers came out, hardly any changes really to the overall map, the only standout is Texas breaking 40 votes now after a +2 gain.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/texas-gains-house-seats-while-new-york-loses-in-census-count?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic
Analysis: Nothing really comes out of this latest census reading. The key players are still key, though with a little less emphasis on the northern midwest/blue wall. Biden would have lost 3 electoral votes from last election, which is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
No breaking points have changed with the census reading, no state really drops in priority, or becomes loseable for either side. I'm sure there are some possibilities that were altered, but for the most part, the big swing states will still play a huge factor. Here are some curious little "split maps" that I've created for potential tie situations, but very unlikely.
First picture represents a world where Republicans do well, flip back Arizona and Georgia, retain the 1 vote in Nebraska, and manage to win Nevada. This situation feels like a reasonable chance of happening and probably our most likely chance to see a tie.
Second picture represents a scenario where once again, Republicans manage to flip back Arizona and Georgia (they have to win back these states to have a chance), and then capture New Hamphire and just fall short. They would need Maine's overall 2 votes to tie at 269-269, but unlikely chance that it happens, because Maine's 1st District is overwhelmingly Democrat.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jf0U1Rn.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/c2QJfTp.png)
|
On April 27 2021 06:26 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2021 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 27 2021 01:50 EnDeR_ wrote:Let me preface my response by saying that I wasn't aware that about 50 police officers lose their lives doing their jobs every year at the hands of armed civilians. I did not realise it was that bad, and probably explains why they are so quick to eliminate the threat as they probably feel constantly under attack. On April 26 2021 05:24 oBlade wrote:
You keep saying "routine traffic stop." It's not routine once they open fire. The two guys we were talking about who got shot after opening fire on the police officer, why did they do that? Because they had warrants out. There are not only so many criminals around, there are so many currently wanted criminals that pulling people over randomly for expired plates in the course of a day, can end up with you pulling over extremely dangerous people without knowing it. Why shoot at cops? Because you don't want to go to jail. Why not flee? Because a high speed chase is extremely stacked against you, whereas pretending to comply until you murder the cop and drive away gives you a way out. I saw the video of someone get pulled over for a tinted window machinegun the officer. I did, however, want to argue this point. The data shows that the majority of police shootings started with the police shooting, not the suspect. In fact, in only about a quarter of cases the suspect fired their gun, according to this study that looked at all police killings in 2015 onlinelibrary.wiley.com. The study is quite nice and includes a lot of data. I extracted the data from the paper so you can see it here: For 10% of the shootings, the suspect was completely unarmed which is kind of crazy. Mostly, people got killed for brandishing their gun/knife and attacking with non-gun weapons. 11 were shot for trying to run away, and 7 people were shot accidentally in 2015, which is a lot in my opinion. Clearly the issue is more with the whole justice system. I do take your point that criminals in the US seem to have less to lose than those in other western democracies, which definitely makes them more likely to shoot at police which exacerbates the problem.
In general, my thoughts are that crime is too widespread. The more dangerous it is for police on a regular basis, and the more they end up in dangerous situations, naturally the more they need training and equipment and tools that are suited for those situations and may misapply those. It increases the variance of everything. And the remedies for crime are education to prepare people for jobs, a strong economy to give them those jobs, arresting criminals, drug interdiction, family, and community.
I agree with most of this, but I still think a bit more emphasis on de-escalation before the situation gets to the pulling out weapons stage would not be amiss. At the end of the day, the narrative that people are getting shot for routine traffic stops while complying with police is just bullshit. Not to say that it absolutely never happens (see: Philando Castille) but it's obviously the rarest example that gets presented as the status quo. It's like Pro-lifers that make an argument against abortion because of late-term abortions when they represent 1% of all abortions. It's nauseating hearing all these uber wealthy celebrities and politicians saying "I have to wonder every day if my child is going to come home tonight or if they are going to be killed by the police." Really? Do their children not know you shouldn't pulled out guns/knives and attack police? Or do they just irrationally believe that their child is likely to be the 1 in a million case that gets killed like Philando Castille? I'm kind of surprised you didn't realize how rough it was for police in the US. Your own numbers show that multiple times a day police are being shot at, having a gun pulled on them, being attacked with knives, etc. Eri is basically the only person in this entire thread that when making a comparison between the US and a country like Norway will also acknowledge that Norway has a lot less violent crime than the US. Everyone else just conveniently neglects to mention that. Comparing the US which has a very weak social safety net to Norway and chalking up the difference in police shootings entirely to the behavior of the police is either ignorant or disingenuous. The best way to reduce police shootings is to reduce poverty, reduce desperation in people, reduce untreated mental illness, etc. But those things cost money. Have guns drawn on cops? Gun control. I agree with your conclusion how to tackle the problem. I don't understand your reasoning that cops aren't killing to many people. Don't have enough money for the measure? Have proper VAT, wealth tax, inheritance tax and income tax all over the country and your money problems are solved. Oh and while your're at it, close them loopholes for amazon and their ilk.
My main point was that the narrative you offer below is bullshit
On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
|
On April 27 2021 07:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2021 06:26 Artisreal wrote:On April 27 2021 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 27 2021 01:50 EnDeR_ wrote:Let me preface my response by saying that I wasn't aware that about 50 police officers lose their lives doing their jobs every year at the hands of armed civilians. I did not realise it was that bad, and probably explains why they are so quick to eliminate the threat as they probably feel constantly under attack. On April 26 2021 05:24 oBlade wrote:
You keep saying "routine traffic stop." It's not routine once they open fire. The two guys we were talking about who got shot after opening fire on the police officer, why did they do that? Because they had warrants out. There are not only so many criminals around, there are so many currently wanted criminals that pulling people over randomly for expired plates in the course of a day, can end up with you pulling over extremely dangerous people without knowing it. Why shoot at cops? Because you don't want to go to jail. Why not flee? Because a high speed chase is extremely stacked against you, whereas pretending to comply until you murder the cop and drive away gives you a way out. I saw the video of someone get pulled over for a tinted window machinegun the officer. I did, however, want to argue this point. The data shows that the majority of police shootings started with the police shooting, not the suspect. In fact, in only about a quarter of cases the suspect fired their gun, according to this study that looked at all police killings in 2015 onlinelibrary.wiley.com. The study is quite nice and includes a lot of data. I extracted the data from the paper so you can see it here: For 10% of the shootings, the suspect was completely unarmed which is kind of crazy. Mostly, people got killed for brandishing their gun/knife and attacking with non-gun weapons. 11 were shot for trying to run away, and 7 people were shot accidentally in 2015, which is a lot in my opinion. Clearly the issue is more with the whole justice system. I do take your point that criminals in the US seem to have less to lose than those in other western democracies, which definitely makes them more likely to shoot at police which exacerbates the problem.
In general, my thoughts are that crime is too widespread. The more dangerous it is for police on a regular basis, and the more they end up in dangerous situations, naturally the more they need training and equipment and tools that are suited for those situations and may misapply those. It increases the variance of everything. And the remedies for crime are education to prepare people for jobs, a strong economy to give them those jobs, arresting criminals, drug interdiction, family, and community.
I agree with most of this, but I still think a bit more emphasis on de-escalation before the situation gets to the pulling out weapons stage would not be amiss. At the end of the day, the narrative that people are getting shot for routine traffic stops while complying with police is just bullshit. Not to say that it absolutely never happens (see: Philando Castille) but it's obviously the rarest example that gets presented as the status quo. It's like Pro-lifers that make an argument against abortion because of late-term abortions when they represent 1% of all abortions. It's nauseating hearing all these uber wealthy celebrities and politicians saying "I have to wonder every day if my child is going to come home tonight or if they are going to be killed by the police." Really? Do their children not know you shouldn't pulled out guns/knives and attack police? Or do they just irrationally believe that their child is likely to be the 1 in a million case that gets killed like Philando Castille? I'm kind of surprised you didn't realize how rough it was for police in the US. Your own numbers show that multiple times a day police are being shot at, having a gun pulled on them, being attacked with knives, etc. Eri is basically the only person in this entire thread that when making a comparison between the US and a country like Norway will also acknowledge that Norway has a lot less violent crime than the US. Everyone else just conveniently neglects to mention that. Comparing the US which has a very weak social safety net to Norway and chalking up the difference in police shootings entirely to the behavior of the police is either ignorant or disingenuous. The best way to reduce police shootings is to reduce poverty, reduce desperation in people, reduce untreated mental illness, etc. But those things cost money. Have guns drawn on cops? Gun control. I agree with your conclusion how to tackle the problem. I don't understand your reasoning that cops aren't killing to many people. Don't have enough money for the measure? Have proper VAT, wealth tax, inheritance tax and income tax all over the country and your money problems are solved. Oh and while your're at it, close them loopholes for amazon and their ilk. My main point was that the narrative you offer below is bullshit Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
There is quite a bit of truth to what artisreal is saying. From the same study i quoted earlier:
The results indicated civilians from “other” minority groups were significantly more likely than Whites to have not been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians and that Black civilians were more than twice as likely as White civilians to have been unarmed.
Basically, most of the black and minority people on that list were less likely to be armed and less likely to have been attacking the officers involved, and yet, they were still twice as likely to get killed than a white person.
That's something that needs to be addressed and something worth protesting for.
Also, 100 of those killings were with unarmed suspects, and 11 were with a fleeing suspect. At the bare minimum, that should never happen again.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 27 2021 06:54 Doublemint wrote:@LL + Show Spoiler +On April 26 2021 23:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 18:08 Doublemint wrote:
Lenin had a name for people being used under false pretenses, and without understanding the whole devious point. don't be that. There's also a word for people who, under false pretenses, ask the question of "what about?" in regards to some foreign devil or other in order to distract from the very real problems in one's own country. "Yes things are bad - but Russia and China are murderous dictatorships!" the saying goes. Then a caricature of the latter countries is propped up to hide the fact that the Western countries being propped up as a paragon of virtue have some serious moral failings of their own. The question of "which is worse/better really?" is often glossed over because few people have the knowledge or inclination to provide nuance to such a point. But it's safe to say that people who uncritically bash those other countries without really evaluating the reality of what life is like there are just lapping up propaganda used to hide the ugly nature of the problems in the Western world. The stagnating economic situation that only serves the wealthy is a good place to start looking if you need some concrete evidence that the Chinese position isn't entirely baseless. Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 20:00 Doublemint wrote: you gave the answer yourself. a quarter does not like the Chauvin verdict. as I see it, that is quite the minority, no? A quarter of the country looked at an obvious murder-by-police, a case so cut and dry that a large swath of people have no sympathy for the "Black Lives Matter" movement look at this and see it as a bridge too far, and thought that a conviction of the policeman responsible was the wrong decision... and you see that as a good thing? people can only deal with what is infront of them. and life is anything but dealing with absolutes. so we are comparing relatives here - and relatively speaking - our system of government is (working) better, and not just on paper. that is what I mean. the people are a different matter, I am sure the average Chinese person and the average Russian is about as smart and lovely - or brutish and simple - as the next one anywhere else, including any Western country. btw, if you are modestly wealthy you can live rather nicely just about anywhere in the world, you have to live by certain rules as well... mostly unwritten ones. so that is a low bar to pass imho. and given that at one point in a not too distant past America was so split into two camps that they would not even agree on the color of the sky, I would say the Chauvin verdict is an open and shut case with just about 25% doing their best Ostrich impressions.
China's system of government clearly, unambiguously worked better in 2020. Whether or not that will continue going forward is of course a matter for the future. I hate to admit it, but I don't think that it was just a fluke.
Not much else to comment on if the nuance of what it's like to live in each of these countries is something to be abstracted away. It's clearly not as simple as "West good, Russia and China is living under a dictatorship" as you seem to be reluctantly coming around to admitting.
|
On April 27 2021 08:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2021 06:54 Doublemint wrote:@LL + Show Spoiler +On April 26 2021 23:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 18:08 Doublemint wrote:
Lenin had a name for people being used under false pretenses, and without understanding the whole devious point. don't be that. There's also a word for people who, under false pretenses, ask the question of "what about?" in regards to some foreign devil or other in order to distract from the very real problems in one's own country. "Yes things are bad - but Russia and China are murderous dictatorships!" the saying goes. Then a caricature of the latter countries is propped up to hide the fact that the Western countries being propped up as a paragon of virtue have some serious moral failings of their own. The question of "which is worse/better really?" is often glossed over because few people have the knowledge or inclination to provide nuance to such a point. But it's safe to say that people who uncritically bash those other countries without really evaluating the reality of what life is like there are just lapping up propaganda used to hide the ugly nature of the problems in the Western world. The stagnating economic situation that only serves the wealthy is a good place to start looking if you need some concrete evidence that the Chinese position isn't entirely baseless. Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 20:00 Doublemint wrote: you gave the answer yourself. a quarter does not like the Chauvin verdict. as I see it, that is quite the minority, no? A quarter of the country looked at an obvious murder-by-police, a case so cut and dry that a large swath of people have no sympathy for the "Black Lives Matter" movement look at this and see it as a bridge too far, and thought that a conviction of the policeman responsible was the wrong decision... and you see that as a good thing? people can only deal with what is infront of them. and life is anything but dealing with absolutes. so we are comparing relatives here - and relatively speaking - our system of government is (working) better, and not just on paper. that is what I mean. the people are a different matter, I am sure the average Chinese person and the average Russian is about as smart and lovely - or brutish and simple - as the next one anywhere else, including any Western country. btw, if you are modestly wealthy you can live rather nicely just about anywhere in the world, you have to live by certain rules as well... mostly unwritten ones. so that is a low bar to pass imho. and given that at one point in a not too distant past America was so split into two camps that they would not even agree on the color of the sky, I would say the Chauvin verdict is an open and shut case with just about 25% doing their best Ostrich impressions. China's system of government clearly, unambiguously worked better in 2020. Whether or not that will continue going forward is of course a matter for the future. I hate to admit it, but I don't think that it was just a fluke. Not much else to comment on if the nuance of what it's like to live in each of these countries is something to be abstracted away. It's clearly not as simple as "West good, Russia and China is living under a dictatorship" as you seem to be reluctantly coming around to admitting.
They're conducting a genocide though, curious to ear what awesome deeds they achieved to "work better in 2020". Oh they also downplayed the burgeonning a of a new disease, not that it did not happen on the other side of the ocean but at least the guy in charge was replaced consequently.
|
|
|
what I meant to say was that he should move on from (just or mainly) the pointing out of bad stuff - of which there is an overabundance in a fucked up world - and not forget the hope and progress side. GH should never stop fighting for his right and what is right, the day you stop and go the way of (inner) resignation is when you die, little by little.
I don't point out the horrific crimes against humanity that the US has inflicted since inception (and the colonists in both Americas before) and continued largely uninterrupted because I've given up hope. I do it because it contextualizes the US prioritizing profits for a handful of wealthy people at the expense of countless lives in the global south (edit: as well as BIPOC domestically) as consistent with what the US has always been.
As to the "it's better now" trope (that also existed in the 60's preceding the civil rights movement), I like to look at the economics since it's not a vague emotion, but a trackable statistic.
To that point, the wealth gap between Black and white people was already stagnant from the 60's and by all estimations much worse since the pandemic.
That means an entire generation of Black people that saw MLK march for equity, voted for Democrats relentlessly for 60+ years are dying + Show Spoiler +(many, disproportionately so from corona virus because of decades of neglect by states for medical infrastructure in their communities)
My perspective that Democrats are generally useless or worse when it comes to this stuff isn't a lack of hope, it's a persistence of hope that other people capable of critical thinking also come to this realization.
|
On April 27 2021 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +what I meant to say was that he should move on from (just or mainly) the pointing out of bad stuff - of which there is an overabundance in a fucked up world - and not forget the hope and progress side. GH should never stop fighting for his right and what is right, the day you stop and go the way of (inner) resignation is when you die, little by little. I don't point out the horrific crimes against humanity that the US has inflicted since inception (and the colonists in both Americas before) and continued largely uninterrupted because I've given up hope. I do it because it contextualizes the US prioritizing profits for a handful of wealthy people at the expense of countless lives in the global south as consistent with what the US has always been. As to the "it's better now" trope (that also existed in the 60's preceding the civil rights movement), I like to look at the economics since it's not a vague emotion, but a trackable statistic. To that point, the wealth gap between Black and white people was already stagnant from the 60's and by all estimations much worse since the pandemic. That means an entire generation of Black people that saw MLK march for equity, voted for Democrats relentlessly for 60+ years are dying + Show Spoiler +(many, disproportionately so from corona virus because of decades of neglect by states for medical infrastructure in their communities) without any progress being made on wealth inequity despite decades of promises and appeals to empty legislation. My perspective that Democrats are generally useless or worse when it comes to this stuff isn't a lack of hope, it's a persistence of hope that other people capable of critical thinking also come to this realization.
I mean the USA have a system where both parties switch every x years and then revert everything the other party did. Like look at that abortion bill that's currently making rounds, the funding of pro abortion groups was established by Clinton and has since been reverted by every republican president and reinstated by every democratic one. Obama and Trump both ran promising large changes and Trump reverted 90% of what Obama did and Biden will revert 90% of what Trump did. The US 2 party election system is completely paralyzing any possible long term change even if the dems were willing to do something for the poorer part of society and not in bed with the economy.
|
|
|
On April 27 2021 11:09 JimmiC wrote:
It is pretty strange to blame the party that has made all the positive changes in the last 50 years. And not the one that is always fighting against as well, and the voters that continue to vote for them. Also, the only worse than a 2 party system is a 1 party system!
Naw This is America. The left loves to eat its own more than it does to fight the right.
|
|
|
On April 27 2021 09:56 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2021 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:what I meant to say was that he should move on from (just or mainly) the pointing out of bad stuff - of which there is an overabundance in a fucked up world - and not forget the hope and progress side. GH should never stop fighting for his right and what is right, the day you stop and go the way of (inner) resignation is when you die, little by little. I don't point out the horrific crimes against humanity that the US has inflicted since inception (and the colonists in both Americas before) and continued largely uninterrupted because I've given up hope. I do it because it contextualizes the US prioritizing profits for a handful of wealthy people at the expense of countless lives in the global south as consistent with what the US has always been. As to the "it's better now" trope (that also existed in the 60's preceding the civil rights movement), I like to look at the economics since it's not a vague emotion, but a trackable statistic. To that point, the wealth gap between Black and white people was already stagnant from the 60's and by all estimations much worse since the pandemic. That means an entire generation of Black people that saw MLK march for equity, voted for Democrats relentlessly for 60+ years are dying + Show Spoiler +(many, disproportionately so from corona virus because of decades of neglect by states for medical infrastructure in their communities) without any progress being made on wealth inequity despite decades of promises and appeals to empty legislation. My perspective that Democrats are generally useless or worse when it comes to this stuff isn't a lack of hope, it's a persistence of hope that other people capable of critical thinking also come to this realization. I mean the USA have a system where both parties switch every x years and then revert everything the other party did. Like look at that abortion bill that's currently making rounds, the funding of pro abortion groups was established by Clinton and has since been reverted by every republican president and reinstated by every democratic one. Obama and Trump both ran promising large changes and Trump reverted 90% of what Obama did and Biden will revert 90% of what Trump did. The US 2 party election system is completely paralyzing any possible long term change even if the dems were willing to do something for the poorer part of society and not in bed with the economy.
There's a lot of value in closer inspection of the ~"10%" that persists regardless of the party in power. Namely the richest getting richer, the racial wealth gap, and the ever increasing military industrial complex (including the militarizing of authoritarian police).
|
|
|
Norway28563 Posts
On April 27 2021 07:24 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2021 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On April 27 2021 06:26 Artisreal wrote:On April 27 2021 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 27 2021 01:50 EnDeR_ wrote:Let me preface my response by saying that I wasn't aware that about 50 police officers lose their lives doing their jobs every year at the hands of armed civilians. I did not realise it was that bad, and probably explains why they are so quick to eliminate the threat as they probably feel constantly under attack. On April 26 2021 05:24 oBlade wrote:
You keep saying "routine traffic stop." It's not routine once they open fire. The two guys we were talking about who got shot after opening fire on the police officer, why did they do that? Because they had warrants out. There are not only so many criminals around, there are so many currently wanted criminals that pulling people over randomly for expired plates in the course of a day, can end up with you pulling over extremely dangerous people without knowing it. Why shoot at cops? Because you don't want to go to jail. Why not flee? Because a high speed chase is extremely stacked against you, whereas pretending to comply until you murder the cop and drive away gives you a way out. I saw the video of someone get pulled over for a tinted window machinegun the officer. I did, however, want to argue this point. The data shows that the majority of police shootings started with the police shooting, not the suspect. In fact, in only about a quarter of cases the suspect fired their gun, according to this study that looked at all police killings in 2015 onlinelibrary.wiley.com. The study is quite nice and includes a lot of data. I extracted the data from the paper so you can see it here: For 10% of the shootings, the suspect was completely unarmed which is kind of crazy. Mostly, people got killed for brandishing their gun/knife and attacking with non-gun weapons. 11 were shot for trying to run away, and 7 people were shot accidentally in 2015, which is a lot in my opinion. Clearly the issue is more with the whole justice system. I do take your point that criminals in the US seem to have less to lose than those in other western democracies, which definitely makes them more likely to shoot at police which exacerbates the problem.
In general, my thoughts are that crime is too widespread. The more dangerous it is for police on a regular basis, and the more they end up in dangerous situations, naturally the more they need training and equipment and tools that are suited for those situations and may misapply those. It increases the variance of everything. And the remedies for crime are education to prepare people for jobs, a strong economy to give them those jobs, arresting criminals, drug interdiction, family, and community.
I agree with most of this, but I still think a bit more emphasis on de-escalation before the situation gets to the pulling out weapons stage would not be amiss. At the end of the day, the narrative that people are getting shot for routine traffic stops while complying with police is just bullshit. Not to say that it absolutely never happens (see: Philando Castille) but it's obviously the rarest example that gets presented as the status quo. It's like Pro-lifers that make an argument against abortion because of late-term abortions when they represent 1% of all abortions. It's nauseating hearing all these uber wealthy celebrities and politicians saying "I have to wonder every day if my child is going to come home tonight or if they are going to be killed by the police." Really? Do their children not know you shouldn't pulled out guns/knives and attack police? Or do they just irrationally believe that their child is likely to be the 1 in a million case that gets killed like Philando Castille? I'm kind of surprised you didn't realize how rough it was for police in the US. Your own numbers show that multiple times a day police are being shot at, having a gun pulled on them, being attacked with knives, etc. Eri is basically the only person in this entire thread that when making a comparison between the US and a country like Norway will also acknowledge that Norway has a lot less violent crime than the US. Everyone else just conveniently neglects to mention that. Comparing the US which has a very weak social safety net to Norway and chalking up the difference in police shootings entirely to the behavior of the police is either ignorant or disingenuous. The best way to reduce police shootings is to reduce poverty, reduce desperation in people, reduce untreated mental illness, etc. But those things cost money. Have guns drawn on cops? Gun control. I agree with your conclusion how to tackle the problem. I don't understand your reasoning that cops aren't killing to many people. Don't have enough money for the measure? Have proper VAT, wealth tax, inheritance tax and income tax all over the country and your money problems are solved. Oh and while your're at it, close them loopholes for amazon and their ilk. My main point was that the narrative you offer below is bullshit On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
There is quite a bit of truth to what artisreal is saying. From the same study i quoted earlier: Show nested quote +The results indicated civilians from “other” minority groups were significantly more likely than Whites to have not been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians and that Black civilians were more than twice as likely as White civilians to have been unarmed. Basically, most of the black and minority people on that list were less likely to be armed and less likely to have been attacking the officers involved, and yet, they were still twice as likely to get killed than a white person. That's something that needs to be addressed and something worth protesting for. Also, 100 of those killings were with unarmed suspects, and 11 were with a fleeing suspect. At the bare minimum, that should never happen again.
When Artisreal posts '5% chance of getting shot for your skin color' the post ends up being hyperbolic nonsense which has no relation to reality. There's so much real racism, and the actual numbers are bad enough, that we don't need to invent more racism or blatantly exaggerate the numbers.
Looking at https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/, more than 50000 Americans are pulled over every year. Like 12% of Americans are black. They do get stopped more frequently, there's no question about that, although I'm a bit too busy to find exact numbers, but for the sake of the argument let's say they're stopped at twice the frequency, so 25% of those are black. That'd give us 12500 stops per day. (About 25% of police killings are black people, so I just went with that number for this reason. It doesn't really matter for the point I'm making.)
At a murder rate of 5%, we'd see 625 black Americans shot by police during traffic stops on a daily basis. In reality, police killed just above 1000 people in all of 2020, 241 of those were black, and these were not all the consequence of traffic stops - according to this, it's more than a quarter (but presumably less than a third), so let's go with a reasonable.. 75.
So instead of Artisreal's number of roughly 228125, we're looking at roughly 75.
My post still contains elements of unacceptable racism - black people comprise 12% of the population but 25% of people shot by police. And it might well be that the actual shootings aren't even the worst element of the interactions between black people and police, maybe the whole.. having to be ultra-deferent, perception of police as enemy (reasonable when they demand ultra-deference), the perception of being considered suspicious.. It all contributes to a really unhealthy relationship. But we shouldn't make up numbers, and if we're throwing out ballpark numbers for the sake of discussion (this is totally fine, we can't be expected to research everything), then those ballpark numbers shouldn't be 3000 times higher than reality.
|
The cops have that famous slogan of "to protect and serve". It's true when you realize that the only thing they protect and serve is corporate interests. They did this to someone who couldn't fight back in any capacity for simply forgetting to pay for $14 of items from Walmart, a company that made literally $14,881,000,000 in net profit in 2020 (according to their 2020 SEC filing) and then watched in glee and celebrated. Police cannot be reformed. The entire institution is built for the sadistic power-hungry borderline evil people in society and the longer it continues, the more people it will kill, injure, and traumatize.
|
On April 27 2021 07:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2021 06:26 Artisreal wrote:On April 27 2021 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On April 27 2021 01:50 EnDeR_ wrote:Let me preface my response by saying that I wasn't aware that about 50 police officers lose their lives doing their jobs every year at the hands of armed civilians. I did not realise it was that bad, and probably explains why they are so quick to eliminate the threat as they probably feel constantly under attack. On April 26 2021 05:24 oBlade wrote:
You keep saying "routine traffic stop." It's not routine once they open fire. The two guys we were talking about who got shot after opening fire on the police officer, why did they do that? Because they had warrants out. There are not only so many criminals around, there are so many currently wanted criminals that pulling people over randomly for expired plates in the course of a day, can end up with you pulling over extremely dangerous people without knowing it. Why shoot at cops? Because you don't want to go to jail. Why not flee? Because a high speed chase is extremely stacked against you, whereas pretending to comply until you murder the cop and drive away gives you a way out. I saw the video of someone get pulled over for a tinted window machinegun the officer. I did, however, want to argue this point. The data shows that the majority of police shootings started with the police shooting, not the suspect. In fact, in only about a quarter of cases the suspect fired their gun, according to this study that looked at all police killings in 2015 onlinelibrary.wiley.com. The study is quite nice and includes a lot of data. I extracted the data from the paper so you can see it here: For 10% of the shootings, the suspect was completely unarmed which is kind of crazy. Mostly, people got killed for brandishing their gun/knife and attacking with non-gun weapons. 11 were shot for trying to run away, and 7 people were shot accidentally in 2015, which is a lot in my opinion. Clearly the issue is more with the whole justice system. I do take your point that criminals in the US seem to have less to lose than those in other western democracies, which definitely makes them more likely to shoot at police which exacerbates the problem.
In general, my thoughts are that crime is too widespread. The more dangerous it is for police on a regular basis, and the more they end up in dangerous situations, naturally the more they need training and equipment and tools that are suited for those situations and may misapply those. It increases the variance of everything. And the remedies for crime are education to prepare people for jobs, a strong economy to give them those jobs, arresting criminals, drug interdiction, family, and community.
I agree with most of this, but I still think a bit more emphasis on de-escalation before the situation gets to the pulling out weapons stage would not be amiss. At the end of the day, the narrative that people are getting shot for routine traffic stops while complying with police is just bullshit. Not to say that it absolutely never happens (see: Philando Castille) but it's obviously the rarest example that gets presented as the status quo. It's like Pro-lifers that make an argument against abortion because of late-term abortions when they represent 1% of all abortions. It's nauseating hearing all these uber wealthy celebrities and politicians saying "I have to wonder every day if my child is going to come home tonight or if they are going to be killed by the police." Really? Do their children not know you shouldn't pulled out guns/knives and attack police? Or do they just irrationally believe that their child is likely to be the 1 in a million case that gets killed like Philando Castille? I'm kind of surprised you didn't realize how rough it was for police in the US. Your own numbers show that multiple times a day police are being shot at, having a gun pulled on them, being attacked with knives, etc. Eri is basically the only person in this entire thread that when making a comparison between the US and a country like Norway will also acknowledge that Norway has a lot less violent crime than the US. Everyone else just conveniently neglects to mention that. Comparing the US which has a very weak social safety net to Norway and chalking up the difference in police shootings entirely to the behavior of the police is either ignorant or disingenuous. The best way to reduce police shootings is to reduce poverty, reduce desperation in people, reduce untreated mental illness, etc. But those things cost money. Have guns drawn on cops? Gun control. I agree with your conclusion how to tackle the problem. I don't understand your reasoning that cops aren't killing to many people. Don't have enough money for the measure? Have proper VAT, wealth tax, inheritance tax and income tax all over the country and your money problems are solved. Oh and while your're at it, close them loopholes for amazon and their ilk. My main point was that the narrative you offer below is bullshit Show nested quote +On April 15 2021 18:00 Artisreal wrote:
If you're a black person and get stopped by police for fuck all reason, there's no fucking chance to opt out. If that was a thing, therer wouldn't be as many murders by the police.
Imagine a traffic control where you have to consent to having a 5% chance of being shot for no good reason, i.e. your skin color. No fucking body would do that.
Your feelings play very little role when looking at data though.
And because drone picked it up, the 5% was a purely fictional number, but if the police was actually collecting and publishing information about their interactions properly, we would, in fact, have that number to discuss.
I do wonder why we are not in a position to do that??
On April 27 2021 06:54 Doublemint wrote:@wombat gets my point. and expands on it. @LL + Show Spoiler +On April 26 2021 23:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 18:08 Doublemint wrote:
Lenin had a name for people being used under false pretenses, and without understanding the whole devious point. don't be that. There's also a word for people who, under false pretenses, ask the question of "what about?" in regards to some foreign devil or other in order to distract from the very real problems in one's own country. "Yes things are bad - but Russia and China are murderous dictatorships!" the saying goes. Then a caricature of the latter countries is propped up to hide the fact that the Western countries being propped up as a paragon of virtue have some serious moral failings of their own. The question of "which is worse/better really?" is often glossed over because few people have the knowledge or inclination to provide nuance to such a point. But it's safe to say that people who uncritically bash those other countries without really evaluating the reality of what life is like there are just lapping up propaganda used to hide the ugly nature of the problems in the Western world. The stagnating economic situation that only serves the wealthy is a good place to start looking if you need some concrete evidence that the Chinese position isn't entirely baseless. Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 20:00 Doublemint wrote: you gave the answer yourself. a quarter does not like the Chauvin verdict. as I see it, that is quite the minority, no? A quarter of the country looked at an obvious murder-by-police, a case so cut and dry that a large swath of people have no sympathy for the "Black Lives Matter" movement look at this and see it as a bridge too far, and thought that a conviction of the policeman responsible was the wrong decision... and you see that as a good thing? people can only deal with what is infront of them. and life is anything but dealing with absolutes. so we are comparing relatives here - and relatively speaking - our system of government is (working) better, and not just on paper. that is what I mean. the people are a different matter, I am sure the average Chinese person and the average Russian is about as smart and lovely - or brutish and simple - as the next one anywhere else, including any Western country. btw, if you are modestly wealthy you can live rather nicely just about anywhere in the world, you have to live by certain rules as well... mostly unwritten ones. so that is a low bar to pass imho. and given that at one point in a not too distant past America was so split into two camps that they would not even agree on the color of the sky, I would say the Chauvin verdict is an open and shut case with just about 25% doing their best Ostrich impressions. @artisreal + Show Spoiler +On April 27 2021 00:33 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2021 20:11 Doublemint wrote:
yes. I am basically known as the resident white pride guy and he should stop hurting my race's feelings. discussions on the internet are fun.
// the move on part was more specifically for GH. not in general. he should of course NEVER stop fighting for making the American dream his personal dream. racist fucks be damned. the colour of your skin has no relevance for whatever you write. you wrote that he's going too far. which is a thing many people in power have said before, when vacation days were demandend, safety standards were demanded, a 6 then 5 day work week was demanded and finally granted. The call for equality of the people is still being denied as "going too quickly", "going too far". Which is a ridiculous thing to say when Black people are being treated as second or third class citizen now, as they were 40, 50, 60 years ago. And it's undeniably so, that much more progress than actually happened was demanded back in the 50s and even before - maybe GH can point you to a book or two if you're really interested. I would liken the situation if we still had the former Nazi Reich judges presiding over our cases - as they did in the early years of the country that would become this Germany. We would have every right, even the obligation to demand that ALL of the Nazi collaborateur judges be remove immediately, not maybe a token one, two, even half. All of them. Same goes for Black people demanding equality. Not just a bit, for the rich ones, that play popular actors in movies or are good sports personalities. Everyone. apparently I am unable to convey ideas for some reason, so let's try again. what I meant to say was that he should move on from (just or mainly) the pointing out of bad stuff - of which there is an overabundance in a fucked up world - and not forget the hope and progress side. GH should never stop fighting for his right and what is right, the day you stop and go the way of (inner) resignation is when you die, little by little. and what about those nazi judges? last time I checked there are hardly any if any at all are left in GER and AT? but the progress was not an automatism, people fought and protested and screamed out "enough with the bullshit" - 68' student revolts come to mind - and little by little they achieved quite a few of their goals. they had hope they could change stuff for the better and fought. powered through the setbacks which were plenty as well. they saw injustice: judges who served under a terrible regime and sent people to prison or worse with no chance for recourse, and in the name of dear Führer... and those very same judges are in the same position or at least similar position (if they were not top brass they too easily skirted de-nazification). only now active in the CDU/CSU or SPD or another party which took them in after the war was lost. a fact those parties to this day rather not discuss. similar stuff in AT. nazi judges passing judgement, now under a different set of rules in a free society... imagine how jewish people felt about that. or anyone really with even a shred of integrity. it took a long while and a ton of resistence to overcome to get them out. some died while still being in office, or getting a nice pension after leaving office I am sure. I mean, we are not disagreeing on a single thing. either I cannot write for shit you cannot read. mb both.
My expectation of bad faith arguments when it comes to police violence and racism might play a role in my failure to get the message you try to send 
I'm still not understanding how the different paragraphs you write support a coherent argument for change, but that can also just be on me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/yfZdvPB/table.png)
