|
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 July 13 2023 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ, ill just ask early on this time. Do you think American police officers have a similar line for when to use deadly force as what you see in most EU countries, or do you think they are more or less willing? I myself think they have a far lower threshold than police officers in the UK,lower than almost all EU countries, however, possibly comparable to what you see in France. That said, in france we recently saw riots as a result of a police killing anyway. Reminds me of a quote from a former soldier turned police officer.
They had a higher threshold for use of lethal force patrolling the streets of Iraq then as a police officer in the US.
|
On July 13 2023 20:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2023 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ, ill just ask early on this time. Do you think American police officers have a similar line for when to use deadly force as what you see in most EU countries, or do you think they are more or less willing? I myself think they have a far lower threshold than police officers in the UK,lower than almost all EU countries, however, possibly comparable to what you see in France. That said, in france we recently saw riots as a result of a police killing anyway. I think being more likely to get shot in the US for being aggressive with a knife than in other western democracies is probably an accurate reflection of reality. I don’t think thats even a fraction of the way to making the US a “police state.” In the UK you’re far more likely to have the police show up for something objectionable you’ve posted online. As someone that posts unpopular opinions online way more than I charge police officers with knives I would feel far more threatened by the latter use of police force.
I would say that civil forfeiture alone makes a good argument for the US being a police state.
|
On July 13 2023 21:00 Gahlo wrote:
Sounds to me like the issue is the shooting, regardless of direction.
It's a fun deflection chain.
You talk about police violence, and the prevalence of guns is the problem, not the violent police.
You talk about guns, and it is a mental health crisis.
You talk about mental health and healthcare in general, and the US has the best possible system in the world.
So whenever you talk about something, something else is the problem, but when you want to talk about that thing, the same people also don't want to do anything about it.
|
On July 13 2023 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:"From the pool of officers charged with murder between 2005 and 2019, about a third were convicted on any charges. Seven officers – just 5% – have been convicted of murder." https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-rare-chauvin/index.html"In 2020, murder and manslaughter charges had the highest crime clearance rate in the United States, with 54.4 percent of all cases being cleared by arrest or so-called exceptional means." https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/The discrepancy (edit: in successful convictions) for murder and manslaughter charges is between 54.4% (general population) and 5% (police officers). That is 1 in 1.8 compared to 1 in 20. Lesser charges against police officers were also far less likely to be successful.
Hmmmm but aren't you comparing apples and oranges (or pears) here? The first is conviction rates and the second clearance rates, which basically means that a suspect was apprehended.
What is crime clearance?
Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. [...]
|
On July 13 2023 21:14 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2023 21:00 Gahlo wrote:
Sounds to me like the issue is the shooting, regardless of direction. It's a fun deflection chain. You talk about police violence, and the prevalence of guns is the problem, not the violent police. You talk about guns, and it is a mental health crisis. You talk about mental health and healthcare in general, and the US has the best possible system in the world. So whenever you talk about something, something else is the problem, but when you want to talk about that thing, the same people also don't want to do anything about it.
It's like watching Lucy set up the football and they line up to kick it every time.
|
It is really hard to deal with people communicating in bad faith when you are used to people communicating in good faith.
You just keep expecting them to actually hold the positions they claim to hold.
|
On July 13 2023 17:46 Uldridge wrote:
There are so many rotten funaments, it's exhausting just thinking about changing it all.
It's the same thing with corporations, and they're orders of magnitude less complex than society. You have years upon years of building upon some rulebook. The rulebook becomes anitquated, but they won't spend time and money seriously reforming that rulebook because that would mean shooting themselves in the foot (or sometimes both feet or sometimes even the head) so they won't even consider it. They rather patch it up ad perpetuum with temporary bandaids hoping they can chug along for another few business cycles. And then they have to patch again.
My point is - this kind of changed into a game development analogy so let's roll with it - that it's kind of a no go that people will change the source code from the ground up for an existing game. They rather build an entirely new game and then hope that new game has source code written well enough and has fun mechanics that it can attract a big enough player base to be relevant. People rather patch the bugs and glitches out and when that creates new issues, they'll patch those.
I like this game dev analogy.
I'm pretty much on the side of Its Too Broken to Fix Within the System. The people with systematic power either need to go, or they need to be very, very afraid of the consequences of the current societal course of action.
The source code is too old and bad, its gonna be much harder in the long run to implement new features and not interfere with old ones with the old code than to start from scratch.
Unfortunately in this case the source code fights back and the programmers have been crunching for decades and are burnt out.
|
On July 13 2023 21:46 Simberto wrote:
It is really hard to deal with people communicating in bad faith when you are used to people communicating in good faith.
You just keep expecting them to actually hold the positions they claim to hold.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says
Fool me one time shame on you
Fool me twice, can't put the blame on you
Fool me three times, fuck the peace signs
Load the chopper, let it... no wait that's not it.
fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — ... ...
I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
oh well, you get the point.
|
On July 13 2023 21:30 schaf wrote:Hmmmm but aren't you comparing apples and oranges (or pears) here? The first is conviction rates and the second clearance rates, which basically means that a suspect was apprehended. Show nested quote +What is crime clearance?
Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. [...]
That's a valid point. I'm now trying to find the true rate of conviction for murder and manslaughter charges in the US, but this information doesn't seem to exist.
I'll try for a while longer but if nothing comes up I'll have to concede this point.
But don't worry, I have yet another angle that supports my argument.
Gun ownership rates
Non-hispanic white: 35% (personal ownership) and 46% (gun household)
Non-white: 23% (personal ownership) and 35% (gun household)
The ratios are 1.5 to 1 (personal ownership) and 1.3 to 1 (gun household) in favor of white people.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/623356/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-ethnicity/
We would therefore expect white people to get killed by police at a slightly higher rate than black people, that is if officers are more likely to shoot at armed individuals. What we find is that it's actually a disproportional opposite from the expectation.
"Black people are 2.9x more likely to be killed by police than white people in the US"
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
Other sources say the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Whichever one is true, the point stands.
So this discrepancy adds to the narrative that the police in the US is harboring and protecting trigger-happy racists. It's hard to argue that a person without a gun is more likely to get shot than a person with a gun, and it's also hard to argue that white people generally are several times less trigger-happy than non-white people. A small difference can be explained, but certainly not a 2 to 2.9 times difference when the rate of ownership already clearly favors white people.
The narrative makes sense that there are very well-protected individuals in the police force who go out of their way to target ethnic minorities.
|
On July 13 2023 22:03 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2023 21:30 schaf wrote:On July 13 2023 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:"From the pool of officers charged with murder between 2005 and 2019, about a third were convicted on any charges. Seven officers – just 5% – have been convicted of murder." https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-rare-chauvin/index.html"In 2020, murder and manslaughter charges had the highest crime clearance rate in the United States, with 54.4 percent of all cases being cleared by arrest or so-called exceptional means." https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/The discrepancy (edit: in successful convictions) for murder and manslaughter charges is between 54.4% (general population) and 5% (police officers). That is 1 in 1.8 compared to 1 in 20. Lesser charges against police officers were also far less likely to be successful. Hmmmm but aren't you comparing apples and oranges (or pears) here? The first is conviction rates and the second clearance rates, which basically means that a suspect was apprehended. What is crime clearance?
Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. [...] That's a valid point. I'm now trying to find the true rate of conviction for murder and manslaughter charges in the US, but this information doesn't seem to exist. I'll try for a while longer but if nothing comes up I'll have to concede this point. But don't worry, I have yet another angle that supports my argument. Gun ownership ratesNon-hispanic white: 35% (personal ownership) and 46% (gun household) Non-white: 23% (personal ownership) and 35% (gun household) The ratios are 1.5 to 1 (personal ownership) and 1.3 to 1 (gun household) in favor of white people. https://www.statista.com/statistics/623356/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-ethnicity/We would therefore expect white people to get killed by police at a slightly higher rate than black people, that is if officers are more likely to shoot at armed individuals. What we find is that it's actually a disproportional opposite from the expectation. "Black people are 2.9x more likely to be killed by police than white people in the US" https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/Other sources say the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Whichever one is true, the point stands. So this discrepancy adds to the narrative that the police in the US is harboring and protecting trigger-happy racists. It's hard to argue that a person without a gun is more likely to get shot than a person with a gun, and it's also hard to argue that white people generally are several times less trigger-happy than non-white people. A small difference can be explained, but certainly not a 2 to 2.9 times difference when the rate of ownership already clearly favors white people. The narrative makes sense that there are very well-protected individuals in the police force who go out of their way to target ethnic minorities.
I am still not sure if making gun violence a race issue is the best way to make changes. Even though black people are shot more, others are also shot way too much. I have more faith in joining forces against a problem which reaches far beyond racism.
|
Yeah, making this about race is probably one of the dumbest moves possible...
I can allready "read/see" it:
Concerned patriots blaming the blacks when the tyrannical goverment comes and takes their god given right to own guns away because the police isn't allowed to shoot thugs anymore.
Thinking further about it, please do it, the entertainment value would skyrocket even more.
|
On July 13 2023 22:03 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2023 21:30 schaf wrote:On July 13 2023 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:"From the pool of officers charged with murder between 2005 and 2019, about a third were convicted on any charges. Seven officers – just 5% – have been convicted of murder." https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-rare-chauvin/index.html"In 2020, murder and manslaughter charges had the highest crime clearance rate in the United States, with 54.4 percent of all cases being cleared by arrest or so-called exceptional means." https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/The discrepancy (edit: in successful convictions) for murder and manslaughter charges is between 54.4% (general population) and 5% (police officers). That is 1 in 1.8 compared to 1 in 20. Lesser charges against police officers were also far less likely to be successful. Hmmmm but aren't you comparing apples and oranges (or pears) here? The first is conviction rates and the second clearance rates, which basically means that a suspect was apprehended. What is crime clearance?
Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. [...] That's a valid point. I'm now trying to find the true rate of conviction for murder and manslaughter charges in the US, but this information doesn't seem to exist. I'll try for a while longer but if nothing comes up I'll have to concede this point. But don't worry, I have yet another angle that supports my argument. Gun ownership ratesNon-hispanic white: 35% (personal ownership) and 46% (gun household) Non-white: 23% (personal ownership) and 35% (gun household) The ratios are 1.5 to 1 (personal ownership) and 1.3 to 1 (gun household) in favor of white people. https://www.statista.com/statistics/623356/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-ethnicity/We would therefore expect white people to get killed by police at a slightly higher rate than black people, that is if officers are more likely to shoot at armed individuals. What we find is that it's actually a disproportional opposite from the expectation. "Black people are 2.9x more likely to be killed by police than white people in the US" https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/Other sources say the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Whichever one is true, the point stands. So this discrepancy adds to the narrative that the police in the US is harboring and protecting trigger-happy racists. It's hard to argue that a person without a gun is more likely to get shot than a person with a gun, and it's also hard to argue that white people generally are several times less trigger-happy than non-white people. A small difference can be explained, but certainly not a 2 to 2.9 times difference when the rate of ownership already clearly favors white people. The narrative makes sense that there are very well-protected individuals in the police force who go out of their way to target ethnic minorities.
You should never look up crime statistics by race from the USA, because then your whole point would reverse and change to "police actually kill way less African-Americans then they statistically should".
|
|
|
On July 13 2023 22:55 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2023 22:03 Magic Powers wrote:On July 13 2023 21:30 schaf wrote:On July 13 2023 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:"From the pool of officers charged with murder between 2005 and 2019, about a third were convicted on any charges. Seven officers – just 5% – have been convicted of murder." https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-rare-chauvin/index.html"In 2020, murder and manslaughter charges had the highest crime clearance rate in the United States, with 54.4 percent of all cases being cleared by arrest or so-called exceptional means." https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/The discrepancy (edit: in successful convictions) for murder and manslaughter charges is between 54.4% (general population) and 5% (police officers). That is 1 in 1.8 compared to 1 in 20. Lesser charges against police officers were also far less likely to be successful. Hmmmm but aren't you comparing apples and oranges (or pears) here? The first is conviction rates and the second clearance rates, which basically means that a suspect was apprehended. What is crime clearance?
Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. [...] That's a valid point. I'm now trying to find the true rate of conviction for murder and manslaughter charges in the US, but this information doesn't seem to exist. I'll try for a while longer but if nothing comes up I'll have to concede this point. But don't worry, I have yet another angle that supports my argument. Gun ownership ratesNon-hispanic white: 35% (personal ownership) and 46% (gun household) Non-white: 23% (personal ownership) and 35% (gun household) The ratios are 1.5 to 1 (personal ownership) and 1.3 to 1 (gun household) in favor of white people. https://www.statista.com/statistics/623356/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-ethnicity/We would therefore expect white people to get killed by police at a slightly higher rate than black people, that is if officers are more likely to shoot at armed individuals. What we find is that it's actually a disproportional opposite from the expectation. "Black people are 2.9x more likely to be killed by police than white people in the US" https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/Other sources say the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Whichever one is true, the point stands. So this discrepancy adds to the narrative that the police in the US is harboring and protecting trigger-happy racists. It's hard to argue that a person without a gun is more likely to get shot than a person with a gun, and it's also hard to argue that white people generally are several times less trigger-happy than non-white people. A small difference can be explained, but certainly not a 2 to 2.9 times difference when the rate of ownership already clearly favors white people. The narrative makes sense that there are very well-protected individuals in the police force who go out of their way to target ethnic minorities. You should never look up crime statistics by race from the USA, because then your whole point would reverse and change to "police actually kill way less African-Americans then they statistically should".
Why?
|
On July 13 2023 16:22 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler [spoilered for length] +On July 13 2023 08:04 ChristianS wrote:
@Mohdoo: I mean, I’ve got my complaints about the FDA myself. But my point was more about the idea of *creating* a regulatory framework in the first place, going back to like 1906. That was something where as a government it was possible to look at an unregulated market like drugs, with a lot of cutting edge scientific questions around what a regulatory framework would even mean, and go ahead and build one anyway. It’s unfathomable to me that we could do something like that today (e.g. with unregulated markets like social media or AI).
That the existing regulatory frameworks are becoming increasingly inadequate too is only further evidence of the institutional decay I’m trying to describe.
@GH: Come on now, I’m not insisting that anyone “tolerate the increasing deprivation of their rights indefinitely.” If you or anybody else has a plan to get those rights back I’m eager to hear it. Saying “letting Republicans get elected will demonstrably make this problem worse, not better” is not explicitly or implicitly saying that anybody should tolerate it a second longer than they have to.
If you’ve got a way that *not* voting for the person with a D by their name would give those rights back, I’m very interested to hear how that works. Otherwise, filling out a ballot only takes part of a day every couple years. Why can’t we spend the other 364 days working on non-electoral solutions, without ceding control of government to fascists? It very much reads that you are to me. You already know the ideas/plans I relate to are rooted in revolutionary socialism. I've given plenty of recommendations for further reading/understanding of what that means to me over the years. I welcome sincere and serious engagement on anything I've recommended or other relevant socialist perspectives. To be specific, it's a disagreement about how long and under what conditions "they have to", hence the reference to Dr. King's white moderate quote about paternalistically setting the timetable for other peoples' freedom. This isn't a new argument and the decades following Dr. King calling it out so poignantly have thoroughly shown its futility imo. You used the euphemistic "transformational change" for revolution but this is where this conversation always ends up for social democrats. The acceptance that the US probably needs "transformational change", recognizing that the politicians in power (including Democrats) will never allow those changes, and then the realization they have no plan beyond continuing to vote to keep those politicians in power to (hopefully at best) slow down the march toward full blown fascism with maybe some futile support for bastardized socialist policy/strategies sprinkled in. That wouldn't be as egregious if they didn't simultaneously dismiss the progenitors of the socialist/anarchist policies/strategies they bastardize to conform to the Democrat party framework and provide the superficial appearance of solidarity while undermining revolutionary energy.
Since I’m being called a “white moderate” I thought it was a good time to go reread the Letter from Birmingham Jail. Maybe this is poor reading comprehension on my part, but isn’t it kind of definitional to a “white moderate” that they’re discouraging some means of affecting positive change as too hasty/extreme? Where have I done that?
If I read that letter with the question “how should I view the electoral system in trying to affect positive change?” I, at least, get something like this: the electoral system is real, it’s important, and it’s okay to care about its outcomes; but voting alone insufficient to achieve necessary change. As King mentions, their Birmingham Campaign delayed mass demonstrations because they didn’t want to influence the election; specifically, they hoped to see Albert Boutwell defeat Bull Connor (even though, as King also mentions, Boutwell was merely a more moderate segregationist). Once Connor was defeated, they didn’t cancel the campaign and go home, they went right back to demonstrating. If someone had told Dr. King “I’m thinking of voting for Boutwell,” I doubt he would have said “Don’t!” Doing my best to understand what he’s saying in his letter, it seems to me that he would have told them to go ahead, but that it wasn’t enough on its own. (I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of trying to put words in Dr. King’s mouth, but it seems essential to engaging deeply with a text to try to apply its lessons to new situations; if you think I’m misreading it, I’m eager to hear what you think I’ve failed to understand.)
I didn’t intend the phrase “transformational change” to be euphemistic. I suppose you’d prefer “revolutionary change?” I shy away only because I’m never sure how metaphorical the “revolution” is, and when I’m not really sure what a phrase means I try to avoid it. A lot of times people read you calling for revolution and think that means recruiting soldiers, obtaining weapons, and engaging in pitched battles against the military in hopes of triumphing on the battlefield and overthrowing the government. Maybe that’s what you do mean? But if that’s what we’re talking about I’d like to make that more explicit. Otherwise if “revolution” is meant to be more abstract/metaphorical, I was hoping to avoid that distraction.
But I’m not dismissing socialists or anarchists, nor am I telling them to conform their activities to the Democratic Party framework. If they’ve got ideas for what to do next I’m happy to hear them! I have no interest in tone policing or prescribing appropriate and inappropriate methods. I can’t promise to believe whatever they tell me to; I’m not a blind follower, I have to engage critically with ideas and decide for myself whether to believe them. But I’m not opposed to reading some of the theory you push for either (although finding time and energy for it has been pretty difficult; the reading always seems to be pretty dense).
|
On July 13 2023 23:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2023 16:22 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler [spoilered for length] +On July 13 2023 08:04 ChristianS wrote:
@Mohdoo: I mean, I’ve got my complaints about the FDA myself. But my point was more about the idea of *creating* a regulatory framework in the first place, going back to like 1906. That was something where as a government it was possible to look at an unregulated market like drugs, with a lot of cutting edge scientific questions around what a regulatory framework would even mean, and go ahead and build one anyway. It’s unfathomable to me that we could do something like that today (e.g. with unregulated markets like social media or AI).
That the existing regulatory frameworks are becoming increasingly inadequate too is only further evidence of the institutional decay I’m trying to describe.
@GH: Come on now, I’m not insisting that anyone “tolerate the increasing deprivation of their rights indefinitely.” If you or anybody else has a plan to get those rights back I’m eager to hear it. Saying “letting Republicans get elected will demonstrably make this problem worse, not better” is not explicitly or implicitly saying that anybody should tolerate it a second longer than they have to.
If you’ve got a way that *not* voting for the person with a D by their name would give those rights back, I’m very interested to hear how that works. Otherwise, filling out a ballot only takes part of a day every couple years. Why can’t we spend the other 364 days working on non-electoral solutions, without ceding control of government to fascists? It very much reads that you are to me. You already know the ideas/plans I relate to are rooted in revolutionary socialism. I've given plenty of recommendations for further reading/understanding of what that means to me over the years. I welcome sincere and serious engagement on anything I've recommended or other relevant socialist perspectives. To be specific, it's a disagreement about how long and under what conditions "they have to", hence the reference to Dr. King's white moderate quote about paternalistically setting the timetable for other peoples' freedom. This isn't a new argument and the decades following Dr. King calling it out so poignantly have thoroughly shown its futility imo. You used the euphemistic "transformational change" for revolution but this is where this conversation always ends up for social democrats. The acceptance that the US probably needs "transformational change", recognizing that the politicians in power (including Democrats) will never allow those changes, and then the realization they have no plan beyond continuing to vote to keep those politicians in power to (hopefully at best) slow down the march toward full blown fascism with maybe some futile support for bastardized socialist policy/strategies sprinkled in. That wouldn't be as egregious if they didn't simultaneously dismiss the progenitors of the socialist/anarchist policies/strategies they bastardize to conform to the Democrat party framework and provide the superficial appearance of solidarity while undermining revolutionary energy. + Show Spoiler +Since I’m being called a “white moderate” I thought it was a good time to go reread the Letter from Birmingham Jail. Maybe this is poor reading comprehension on my part, but isn’t it kind of definitional to a “white moderate” that they’re discouraging some means of affecting positive change as too hasty/extreme? Where have I done that?
If I read that letter with the question “how should I view the electoral system in trying to affect positive change?” I, at least, get something like this: the electoral system is real, it’s important, and it’s okay to care about its outcomes; but voting alone insufficient to achieve necessary change. As King mentions, their Birmingham Campaign delayed mass demonstrations because they didn’t want to influence the election; specifically, they hoped to see Albert Boutwell defeat Bull Connor (even though, as King also mentions, Boutwell was merely a more moderate segregationist). Once Connor was defeated, they didn’t cancel the campaign and go home, they went right back to demonstrating. If someone had told Dr. King “I’m thinking of voting for Boutwell,” I doubt he would have said “Don’t!” Doing my best to understand what he’s saying in his letter, it seems to me that he would have told them to go ahead, but that it wasn’t enough on its own. (I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of trying to put words in Dr. King’s mouth, but it seems essential to engaging deeply with a text to try to apply its lessons to new situations; if you think I’m misreading it, I’m eager to hear what you think I’ve failed to understand.)
I didn’t intend the phrase “transformational change” to be euphemistic. I suppose you’d prefer “revolutionary change?” I shy away only because I’m never sure how metaphorical the “revolution” is, and when I’m not really sure what a phrase means I try to avoid it. A lot of times people read you calling for revolution and think that means recruiting soldiers, obtaining weapons, and engaging in pitched battles against the military in hopes of triumphing on the battlefield and overthrowing the government. Maybe that’s what you do mean? But if that’s what we’re talking about I’d like to make that more explicit. Otherwise if “revolution” is meant to be more abstract/metaphorical, I was hoping to avoid that distraction. But I’m not dismissing socialists + Show Spoiler +or anarchists, nor am I telling them to conform their activities to the Democratic Party framework. If they’ve got ideas for what to do next I’m happy to hear them! I have no interest in tone policing or prescribing appropriate and inappropriate methods. I can’t promise to believe whatever they tell me to; I’m not a blind follower, I have to engage critically with ideas and decide for myself whether to believe them. But I’m not opposed to reading some of the theory you push for either (although finding time and energy for it has been pretty difficult; the reading always seems to be pretty dense).
You literally said: I know for GH the answer is “revolutionary socialism” but I’m pretty unconvinced that Lenin has the answers for us.
If I wanted to get gaslit I'd just engage BJ.
|
On July 13 2023 23:20 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2023 22:55 schaf wrote:On July 13 2023 22:03 Magic Powers wrote:On July 13 2023 21:30 schaf wrote:On July 13 2023 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:"From the pool of officers charged with murder between 2005 and 2019, about a third were convicted on any charges. Seven officers – just 5% – have been convicted of murder." https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-rare-chauvin/index.html"In 2020, murder and manslaughter charges had the highest crime clearance rate in the United States, with 54.4 percent of all cases being cleared by arrest or so-called exceptional means." https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/The discrepancy (edit: in successful convictions) for murder and manslaughter charges is between 54.4% (general population) and 5% (police officers). That is 1 in 1.8 compared to 1 in 20. Lesser charges against police officers were also far less likely to be successful. Hmmmm but aren't you comparing apples and oranges (or pears) here? The first is conviction rates and the second clearance rates, which basically means that a suspect was apprehended. What is crime clearance?
Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. [...] That's a valid point. I'm now trying to find the true rate of conviction for murder and manslaughter charges in the US, but this information doesn't seem to exist. I'll try for a while longer but if nothing comes up I'll have to concede this point. But don't worry, I have yet another angle that supports my argument. Gun ownership ratesNon-hispanic white: 35% (personal ownership) and 46% (gun household) Non-white: 23% (personal ownership) and 35% (gun household) The ratios are 1.5 to 1 (personal ownership) and 1.3 to 1 (gun household) in favor of white people. https://www.statista.com/statistics/623356/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-ethnicity/We would therefore expect white people to get killed by police at a slightly higher rate than black people, that is if officers are more likely to shoot at armed individuals. What we find is that it's actually a disproportional opposite from the expectation. "Black people are 2.9x more likely to be killed by police than white people in the US" https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/Other sources say the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Whichever one is true, the point stands. So this discrepancy adds to the narrative that the police in the US is harboring and protecting trigger-happy racists. It's hard to argue that a person without a gun is more likely to get shot than a person with a gun, and it's also hard to argue that white people generally are several times less trigger-happy than non-white people. A small difference can be explained, but certainly not a 2 to 2.9 times difference when the rate of ownership already clearly favors white people. The narrative makes sense that there are very well-protected individuals in the police force who go out of their way to target ethnic minorities. You should never look up crime statistics by race from the USA, because then your whole point would reverse and change to "police actually kill way less African-Americans then they statistically should". Why?
Can't find the source right now but I read it some time ago.
When you look only at race, too many black americans get shot.
When you look at "criminals + race" the police seems to be more likely to shoot white criminals than black ones.
Maybe the numbers i saw were missleading (pretty likely because overpolicing of black people was probably not factored in), i don't know but the point is simple.
It's not helpfull to discuss what race is getting shot/killed by police, the simple fact is that the police is shooting way too many people. If the US numbers would be similar to european countries except for one Race/Minority, then looking into it would make plenty of sense, but US-Cops seem to be equal opportunity shooters.
|
I think that one of the problems with society as a whole is we tend to see the need to have rules drive our actions rather than our goals drive our actions. By this I mean that if our goal is to arrive safely at destination b from point a, and the route has speed limit 60, if we drive at 60, we already are losing out since we could have drove at 80 without consequence. Rather than I'm going to drive to point b at the speed in which I feel the need and am comfortable with.
Now I understand why this need exists, and no one wants to waste time, heck the way to promote certain changes is to change the rules themselves. I'm not implying that mentality is wrong in today's society but it applies to everything. So where the heck am I going with this? Well rules are not perfect and typically the extremes are considered when drafting them. Businesses take advantage of, and maximize all of the "loop holes" as much as possible and can reasonably get away with. Anyone not doing this is just going to fall behind and go out of business. And when something wildly goes wrong and we somehow refuse to change any of these rules, how and why would anyone expect any difference in behavior?
this is not the perfect example but if we apply this to policing the general public where guns are prominently available, problems may arise. The only logical expectation by the police of the common citizen is to behave in the extreme, and guess what if they aren't prepared for it by making use of any leverage available (see extremes again), it will be viewed the same as in any other situation where you did not take the extreme stance and lost out (possibly losing their live in this case).
|
On July 13 2023 23:33 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2023 23:20 Magic Powers wrote:On July 13 2023 22:55 schaf wrote:On July 13 2023 22:03 Magic Powers wrote:On July 13 2023 21:30 schaf wrote:On July 13 2023 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:"From the pool of officers charged with murder between 2005 and 2019, about a third were convicted on any charges. Seven officers – just 5% – have been convicted of murder." https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/20/us/police-convicted-murder-rare-chauvin/index.html"In 2020, murder and manslaughter charges had the highest crime clearance rate in the United States, with 54.4 percent of all cases being cleared by arrest or so-called exceptional means." https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/The discrepancy (edit: in successful convictions) for murder and manslaughter charges is between 54.4% (general population) and 5% (police officers). That is 1 in 1.8 compared to 1 in 20. Lesser charges against police officers were also far less likely to be successful. Hmmmm but aren't you comparing apples and oranges (or pears) here? The first is conviction rates and the second clearance rates, which basically means that a suspect was apprehended. What is crime clearance?
Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. [...] That's a valid point. I'm now trying to find the true rate of conviction for murder and manslaughter charges in the US, but this information doesn't seem to exist. I'll try for a while longer but if nothing comes up I'll have to concede this point. But don't worry, I have yet another angle that supports my argument. Gun ownership ratesNon-hispanic white: 35% (personal ownership) and 46% (gun household) Non-white: 23% (personal ownership) and 35% (gun household) The ratios are 1.5 to 1 (personal ownership) and 1.3 to 1 (gun household) in favor of white people. https://www.statista.com/statistics/623356/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-ethnicity/We would therefore expect white people to get killed by police at a slightly higher rate than black people, that is if officers are more likely to shoot at armed individuals. What we find is that it's actually a disproportional opposite from the expectation. "Black people are 2.9x more likely to be killed by police than white people in the US" https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/Other sources say the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Whichever one is true, the point stands. So this discrepancy adds to the narrative that the police in the US is harboring and protecting trigger-happy racists. It's hard to argue that a person without a gun is more likely to get shot than a person with a gun, and it's also hard to argue that white people generally are several times less trigger-happy than non-white people. A small difference can be explained, but certainly not a 2 to 2.9 times difference when the rate of ownership already clearly favors white people. The narrative makes sense that there are very well-protected individuals in the police force who go out of their way to target ethnic minorities. You should never look up crime statistics by race from the USA, because then your whole point would reverse and change to "police actually kill way less African-Americans then they statistically should". Why? Can't find the source right now but I read it some time ago. When you look only at race, too many black americans get shot. When you look at "criminals + race" the police seems to be more likely to shoot white criminals than black ones. Maybe the numbers i saw were missleading (pretty likely because overpolicing of black people was probably not factored in), i don't know but the point is simple. It's not helpfull to discuss what race is getting shot/killed by police, the simple fact is that the police is shooting way too many people. If the US numbers would be similar to european countries except for one Race/Minority, then looking into it would make plenty of sense, but US-Cops seem to be equal opportunity shooters.
Yes. Black Americans commit 8x more homicides per capita then white Americans. I've never been to the US so I can't really speak to the lived experience but in my mind the societal problems have more to do with economics and the tough balance of freedom vs safety then skin color.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
