Bad Boys II

[hollodero]

(05-31-2020, 03:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Well I do think the American Revolution was justified. 
I do think there are times when political violence is justified.

I'm with you on that one.

---
In your recent post you said "And the memes address current forms and dodges of injustice"... which would be fine by me if I saw it that way.
But before you said that "the terms in which civil rights protests are advanced or resisted seem to retain the same form--side A granting that segregation was "of course" bad but accusing side B of precipitating "unnecessary" violence and side B accusing side A of not listening and valuing order above justice. It's the latter point, especially, that the memes in question are making"

------ and, though I repeat myself, I think this is true and the more accurate take of the memes. It is not solely about injustice. It asks the question, is a point reached where the currently displayed means of violence might be justified? And I feel the memes (again, might they be placeholders for many takes and comments) don't just ask said question, but also hint towards an answer... that's my main issue with them. They seem to give justification. I'm starting to get that this take is probably a matter of perspective, as are so many things. I tried yours and it worked half-way for me... but my initial one still convinces me more. I see them as justification efforts, and I dare to say this is not an outlandish or far-fetched interpretation.

And to why my answer is no, we are not at a point where violence is justified to achieve significant change.
For one, I think it does not work. Not at this point in history. I think this will make everything worse and won't help the cause. I said "I know that", but sure I know nothing and could be very wrong on this one. The racial dynamics in the US are way too complex for me to understand. I know that much. Which is why I initially planned to stay out of this debate.

Secondly, in all my ignorance I think riot-like protests are, in a sense at least, way premature. If the officer were to be excused, to walk free, to not face serious consequences, if that were the outcome, then the picture would be totally different. I'd have to at least reconsider. If he is tried and sentenced for murder though, as it should be and in all likelihood will be? Then I actually too lean more towards seeing it a bit more - not totally! - as a singulary incident and a little less as an expression of systemic racism against black people. (By that I'm certainly not saying this systemic racism does not exist, I think it clearly does.) It usually is a better way to go to take that pragmatic view as to overdo an inductive conclusion.

Which should add to thirdly, yeah while I do see the problem of police brutality towards black people, it is honestly hard to overlook, I still think there's no justifiable violent alternative to frustratingly slow incremental steps to better this situation. More power to those that find a non-violent way to display their understandable frustration. But violence as alternative, this one still gets a clear refusal from my side.
And I don't even like relativizations to that at this point. There seems to be a lot of "yeah, violence is bad, but..." going on. Including from the memes. Including from you.

[GMDino]

Trump is not a leader.  

His contributions over the weekend were making sure he blamed democrats and liberals and claiming everyone should be shot.  Then he went into hiding in a bunker.

He is weak and a poor example of a man let alone a President.

Just like we knew for the last 3.5 years.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2020, 04:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The Washington Post article by Shane Harris rather put that attempted cover up to bed.  I'd link but it's behind a paywall and I'm not searching for the archive.

I just read that write-up. It's interesting how much the finger is being pointed around by different groups. Minnesota officials are blaming radicals of all sorts, while the White House is claiming it is only leftists. At least the agreement is that the riots are a hijacking of the protests.

[treee]

(05-31-2020, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That would have happened if they had done nothing.

I dont think you can know that for sure. Who's to say the DA wouldn't invoke qualified immunity and call it a day?

[GMDino]

JUST IN: President Trump unloads on the nation's governors on a call, calls on them to step up enforcement: "You have to dominate, if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time. They’re going to run over you, you’re going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate."

— Ed O'Keefe (@edokeefe) June 1, 2020

[fredtoast]

(05-31-2020, 05:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: Secondly, in all my ignorance I think riot-like protests are, in a sense at least, way premature. If the officer were to be excused, to walk free, to not face serious consequences, if that were the outcome, then the picture would be totally different. 

That was one of the big problems in this case.  The officer was not charged even though everyone had seen the video.  Then after a couple of bad nights of riots he was arrested and charged.

That type of behavior only encourages rioting.

But I agree with your feelings that rioting makes things worse instead of better.

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2020, 11:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It seems like some people use it as a means to get around that, so yeah it could be argued.  Trump's shown us who he is, so him emphasizing the word THUG doesn't exactly make it seem like the most innocent of terms.

That's just my take, though.  You're more than free to treat everything he does and says as if he just arrived on this planet today.

(05-30-2020, 01:28 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As I noted, it’s interesting when the language is reserved for one group and not another that did far worse.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240316-obama-blames-criminals-and-thugs-for-baltimore-riots

Quote:President Obama on Tuesday delivered a sharp-tongued rebuke of rioters in Baltimore, denouncing the actions of “criminals and thugs” who he said were exploiting the death of Freddie Gray.

As my man Dan Crenshaw says: Try hard not to offend, try harder not to be offended. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-01-2020, 02:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240316-obama-blames-criminals-and-thugs-for-baltimore-riots


As my man Dan Crenshaw says: Try hard not to offend, try harder not to be offended. 

I don't give a rat's ass if Obama said THUG.  That doesn't mean I have to look at Trump say THUG and think....well there is no way this guy who didn't denounce the KKK's support of him and just quoted George Wallace could be racist because he didn't explicitly say the ol N-bomb. Come on, I don't think I need a weatherman to know which way this wind blows.

And I'm not offended by Trump, I'm just confident that he's a racist and/or he plays up that angle because it wins him votes.  So what?  This isn't a court of law and I'm not accusing him of anything illegal.

I'm not offended and I think Trump can and should say what he feels he has to say.  I"m just not giving him as much goodwill and leeway as some others given his actions for the past 30 years or so. I'm a white schlub who is sitting on his dirt road while the country burns. I'm not offended by any of this, I have no right to be offended by it and I'm not going to pull some sort of incel "white knigting" for the people Trump does offend.

I'm just calling a d-bag a d-bag. So what?

[GMDino]

More Trump call to the governors.

MORE: Trump tells governors later: "You’re making a mistake because you're making yourselves look like fools. And some have done a great job. But a lot of you, it’s not – it’s not a great day for our country."

— Ed O'Keefe (@edokeefe) June 1, 2020

 

[BmorePat87]

(06-01-2020, 02:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't give a rat's ass if Obama said THUG.  That doesn't mean I have to look at Trump say THUG and think....well there is no way this guy who didn't denounce the KKK's support of him and just quoted George Wallace could be racist because he didn't explicitly say the ol N-bomb.  Come on, I don't think I need a weatherman to know which way this wind blows.

And I'm not offended by Trump, I'm just confident that he's a racist and/or he plays up that angle because it wins him votes.  So what?  This isn't a court of law and I'm not accusing him of anything illegal.

I'm not offended and I think Trump can and should say what he feels he has to say.  I"m just not giving him as much goodwill and leeway as some others given his actions for the past 30 years or so.  I'm a white schlub who is sitting on his dirt road while the country burns.  I'm not offended by any of this, I have no right to be offended by it and I'm not going to pull some sort of incel "white knigting" for the people Trump does offend.

I'm just calling a d-bag a d-bag.  So what?

I'm assuming there's some Obama whataboutism. I don't recall taking issue with the word itself, just as you noted, the unequal application of it. Like I said, it's interesting that actual Neo Nazi's were called "good people" and the man who choked George Floyd wasn't called out, but Trump called out the protestors and called for them to be shot (doing so by quoting an anti civil rights figure who violently attacked young black men who protested in the 60's). Add to that fact, he told governors to listen to the armed white protestors who ignored social distancing and hung effigies of Democratic politicians. 

[Dill]

(05-31-2020, 05:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: Secondly, in all my ignorance I think riot-like protests are, in a sense at least, way premature. If the officer were to be excused, to walk free, to not face serious consequences, if that were the outcome, then the picture would be totally different. I'd have to at least reconsider. If he is tried and sentenced for murder though, as it should be and in all likelihood will be? Then I actually too lean more towards seeing it a bit more - not totally! - as a singulary incident and a little less as an expression of systemic racism against black people. (By that I'm certainly not saying this systemic racism does not exist, I think it clearly does.) It usually is a better way to go to take that pragmatic view as to overdo an inductive conclusion.

Which should add to thirdly, yeah while I do see the problem of police brutality towards black people, it is honestly hard to overlook, I still think there's no justifiable violent alternative to frustratingly slow incremental steps to better this situation. More power to those that find a non-violent way to display their understandable frustration. But violence as alternative, this one still gets a clear refusal from my side.
And I don't even like relativizations to that at this point. There seems to be a lot of "yeah, violence is bad, but..." going on. Including from the memes. Including from you.

Odd to talk about riot-like protests as "premature." I doubt that responsible protestors (the majority) were planning riots as part of a calculated  time line of incremental pressure when they first went into the streets, though some are now thinking of riots if Chauvin is let off easy. 

It won't be "ok to riot" even if officer Chauvin walks free or gets an 8-month reduced sentence for some umpteenth degree of involuntary manslaughter. But riots might be a likely consequence, and not just in Minneapolis.  My recognizing that possibility isn't "relativizing" anyone's actions.

Things won't be "ok" if Chauvin gets a life sentence, either. Remember that during the protest, we saw police arrest a reporter for CNN, with badge on him and camera crew beside him. The black reporter, not the white ones. We saw police shooting paintballs and rubber bullets at a female journalist and her crew, who were yards away from the protestors and clearly identified.  Stop and think for a moment--in a protest/riot caused by police indifference to life--and the resulting national-level bad PR--some in charge on the ground are wholly oblivious to this, still acting under protection of the law as they continue BEFORE CAMERAS the behavior that brought on the protests/riots. That level of oblivious bad judgment on the ground is indicative of a departmental police culture which also has to be addressed. And it is problem now coming to the fore not only in Minneapolis. (Did you see the Chris Rock meme about "bad apples"?)

I think you hit on the primary difference in our interpretation/perspective. I, and apparently most of the protestors, do not see a singular incident here, "a little less as an expression of systemic racism."  That racism has been the object of black/leftists complaints for years now.

So our calculus is not based on this single incident and what happens to Chauvin; in my case, at least, it is looking for the larger pattern, since understanding that will be necessary for any effective policy consequences.

[Dill]

(05-31-2020, 05:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: ------ and, though I repeat myself, I think this is true and the more accurate take of the memes. It is not solely about injustice. It asks the question, is a point reached where the currently displayed means of violence might be justified? And I feel the memes (again, might they be placeholders for many takes and comments) don't just ask said question, but also hint towards an answer... that's my main issue with them. They seem to give justification. I'm starting to get that this take is probably a matter of perspective, as are so many things. I tried yours and it worked half-way for me... but my initial one still convinces me more. I see them as justification efforts, and I dare to say this is not an outlandish or far-fetched interpretation.

And to why my answer is no, we are not at a point where violence is justified to achieve significant change.
For one, I think it does not work. Not at this point in history. I think this will make everything worse and won't help the cause. I said "I know that", but sure I know nothing and could be very wrong on this one. The racial dynamics in the US are way too complex for me to understand. I know that much. Which is why I initially planned to stay out of this debate.
....
Which should add to thirdly, yeah while I do see the problem of police brutality towards black people, it is honestly hard to overlook, I still think there's no justifiable violent alternative to frustratingly slow incremental steps to better this situation. More power to those that find a non-violent way to display their understandable frustration. But violence as alternative, this one still gets a clear refusal from my side.
And I don't even like relativizations to that at this point. There seems to be a lot of "yeah, violence is bad, but..." going on. Including from the memes. Including from you.

As stated in a previous post, riots have led to Consent Decrees which bring direct, federal intervention into police departments, changing existing policy and police training, and monitoring results.  So violence has "worked" in the past.

But "violence works" is too vague and dangerous to serve as a principled guide to action, especially for advocates of civil-rights based law and politics. Unfortunately, it "works" as often for the bad guys as the good.

Yet recognizing the causes of violence, and from there social/economic/political conditions which increase the likelihood of violence, does serve policy analysis for progressives.  In the U.S. since the 1920s, however, this kind of analysis has always met with the objection that "nothing justifies violence." Neither poverty nor police repression "excuse" the angry guy who breaks a window. From this very classical liberal and Protestant perspective, choices and responsibility are always simply "individual." No foothold for social/economic analysis there at all.

Where progressives win this debate, the result is has typically been more just policy, reducing the danger of future riots by addressing the social/economic conditions which gave rise to them. (I.e., fewer moral individuals choose to break windows, which makes property owners happy.)

Where progressives lose, the remedy has been increased police police power--including legal protection for police officers and stiffer penalties for "criminals." Existing progressive policies are often defunded, rolled back, or simply stalled.That seems to be the direction the Trump administration has taken policy, including its "review" of existing Consent Decrees, which puts them on hold for cities like LA and Ferguson.

Whether progressives win or lose depends largely on how well they can analyze-to-understand the conditions which lead to protest and violence, and then make the results public without their efforts being dismissed as "justifying" or "excusing" violence. And over the years, progressives have come to understand how loss of property trumps loss of life in getting the public to "hear" that analysis as something other than an excuse. One could infer from that that riots are "necessary," but simply recognizing and stating that fact should not be equated with making actually making the inference--"violence is bad but . . . ."

Memes are not a direct part of the policy formation process, but they do both express and shape public opinion. The memes you have identified as excusatory--especially responses to Kirk tweets--I read much more analytically as working against any "singular/bad apple" narrative which would confine the problem of police brutality to one random act by a bad policeman among "many good ones."  They identify and address DEAF EARS.

[Dill]

(06-01-2020, 02:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm assuming there's some Obama whataboutism. I don't recall taking issue with the word itself, just as you noted, the unequal application of it. Like I said, it's interesting that actual Neo Nazi's were called "good people" and the man who choked George Floyd wasn't called out, but Trump called out the protestors and called for them to be shot (doing so by quoting an anti civil rights figure who violently attacked young black men who protested in the 60's). Add to that fact, he told governors to listen to the armed white protestors who ignored social distancing and hung effigies of Democratic politicians. 

You and Nately heard Obama separating out "thugs" from protestors who had a legitimate complaint. The actions of these thugs were changing the public conversation FROM a legitimate problem of police violence TO another subject altogether, deflecting the focus needed to address a legitimate problem.  I.e., you heard a leader with a multifaceted grasp of the problem in Baltimore trying to put the public conversation back where it should be. A leader shaping the public conversation in a positive direction.

And you and Nately heard Trump's blanket application of the term to protestors in Minneapolis, with no underlying grasp of social causes and their relation to law, which are needed to construct effective policy. Rather, Trump's message was "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"; his policy direction, if you could call it that, was to "send in the Guard." All in a tweet which violated Twitter's policy against glorifying violence. 

Bfine heard Obama say "thug" and Trump say "thug." 

And then he heard you and Nately say it's not ok when Trump does it.

[*bfine32*]

(06-01-2020, 02:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't give a rat's ass if Obama said THUG.  That doesn't mean I have to look at Trump say THUG and think....well there is no way this guy who didn't denounce the KKK's support of him and just quoted George Wallace could be racist because he didn't explicitly say the ol N-bomb.  Come on, I don't think I need a weatherman to know which way this wind blows.

And I'm not offended by Trump, I'm just confident that he's a racist and/or he plays up that angle because it wins him votes.  So what?  This isn't a court of law and I'm not accusing him of anything illegal.

I'm not offended and I think Trump can and should say what he feels he has to say.  I"m just not giving him as much goodwill and leeway as some others given his actions for the past 30 years or so.  I'm a white schlub who is sitting on his dirt road while the country burns.  I'm not offended by any of this, I have no right to be offended by it and I'm not going to pull some sort of incel "white knigting" for the people Trump does offend.

I'm just calling a d-bag a d-bag.  So what?

Of course your biases are going to form your opinion. Simply letting you know that Trump was not the first to use the term to describe looters and rioters. of course you're free to think he really meant to say Nigerians. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-01-2020, 03:52 PM)Dill Wrote: And then he heard you and Nately say it's not ok when Trump does it.

I'm not here to say what is OK and what isn't OK, so much as postulate that some people may be using the term THUG as a nudge and wink "I said it, but I technically didn't say it" alternative or work-around to ye old n-bomb.  

My main point is that I've seen and heard enough from Trump to not give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, that's all.  Again, the fact that he quoted proud ultra-racist, George Wallace, within spitting distance of THUG (capitalized to show emphasis and disgust) doesn't help his cause, either.

[*Nately120*]

(06-01-2020, 04:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course your biases are going to form your opinion. Simply letting you know that Trump was not the first to use the term to describe looters and rioters. of course you're free to think he really meant to say Nigerians. 

Of course he wasn't the first to use it.  When I hear the word thug I think of Ninja Gaiden II from 1990.  




You are free to assume Trump just picked that word out of a hat, or maybe he was just using the term because his hero Obama used it.

[*bfine32*]

(06-01-2020, 04:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Of course he wasn't the first to use it.  When I hear the word thug I think of Ninja Gaiden II from 1990.  




You are free to assume Trump just picked that word out of a hat, or maybe he was just using the term because his hero Obama used it.

I think he used it because it was an apt term for folks causing violence in the streets. What should he have used..."ruffians, roughnecks...."

[*Nately120*]

(06-01-2020, 04:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think he used it because it was an apt term for folks causing violence in the streets. What should he have used..."ruffians, roughnecks...."

Simply using the word thug without quoting George Wallace would have been a step in the right direction.  But I'm not saying what Trump "should" have done.  The guy is Trump and Trump gonna Trump.

He emphasized THUG and then attached a racially-charged quote to it, so if it wasn't n-bomb light before that tweet, maybe it is now.

[*bfine32*]

Joe has figured it out:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-suggests-police-could-shoot-assailants-in-the-leg-instead-of-the-heart-201750470.html

Quote:Joe Biden said Monday that police under attack in the line of duty should shoot their assailants “in the leg instead of the heart” as a way to avert the killing of civilians.

“Instead of standing there and teaching a cop, when there’s an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something, you shoot them in the leg instead of in the heart is a very different thing. There’s a lot of different things that could change,” Biden said in a meeting with community leaders at Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Del.

Maybe they could just shoot the knife out of their hand and then shoot a low hanging branch in front of them to stop their advance.

[GMDino]

A man was shot and killed in Louisville after law enforcement said they had to "return fire" at a crowd of people.

He was identified by family members as David McAtee, a popular chef and BBQ joint owner who used to feed cops for free https://t.co/TkylyoGAYt

— Tasneem N (@TasneemN) June 1, 2020

BREAKING: officers involved in shooting in W. Louisville last night, killing David McAtee either were not wearing or did not activate their body cameras. There is NO VIDEO of the shooting last night. This is a violation of LMPD policy.

— Shay McAlister (@ShayMcAlisterTV) June 1, 2020

 

Louisville's mayor just fired the police chief after learning that officers did not record body-camera footage of the fatal overnight shooting of David McAtee https://t.co/iTv6FY4uy9

— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) June 1, 2020