Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 254

Faces of terror

On July 21 2020 19:57 CurbStomp wrote: I don't understand why you downplay that slap

Because it wildly depends on the context, if he s protecting himself and others I'm not downplaying shit, he SHOULD be doing that.

On July 21 2020 19:57 CurbStomp wrote: Even if he just threatened them verbally, the use of force should be justified

That is the most retarded thing I've heard today.

On July 21 2020 19:57 CurbStomp wrote: Getting physical with police is crazy and they really went easy on him, probably because of the circumstances.

I'm sure you all for the Hong Kong occupation too

In case it wasn't clear enough from the past couple years of debating that "anarcho"-capitalists and libertarians are hypocrites who only care about their precious negative liberty and not liberty itself, and they are willing to use a state to their advantage when it targets people they don't like, here's a thread full of em celebrating or defending authoritarian government tactics and their complicity in it.


Also, here's a very popular law enforcement subreddit called ProtectAndServe. It is "a place where the law enforcement professionals of Reddit can communicate with each other and the general public in a controlled setting". This place is filled with currently employed law enforcement employees and those aspiring to become one. Now, if the narrative that I have heard from liberals and right-wingers all my life were true, I'd expect these folks to be denouncing this Trump administration move... after all they exist to "protect and serve" the people, don't they? Nope, turns out that state-serving authoritarians actually love completely unaccountable authoritarian state-serving, who would have thunk it?! Here's one of their top memes lately:

On July 21 2020 19:14 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On July 20 2020 22:54 blackjacki2 wrote: Apparently you're a bootlicker if you don't support slapping the police in the face. Loco s going on the extreme, but its a fair point to speculate that the wheelchair dude was most likely only protecting himself or the people around him. Slapping a cop is obviously not the smartest choice, but from the context we've seen and the video that follows it seems unlikely that he was out there to hurt the cops. Then again I was wrong initially, so I might be wrong on this one too, except given the facts and what happened, if he wanted to cause damage he could've done much more. 1. He slaps the cop doesn't even try to punch him - you really don't slap people to cause damage, you slap them to aggressively ask 'what the fuck are you doing' 2. He had a gun which was only found cause he was arrested. 3. There s an interval where he is taken to the ground where a cop shouts something at him, the dude gets to the ground and is acting extremely passively and just tries to keep balance so he wouldn't hit the ground with his face. He could've easily acted aggressively towards the cops. This tells me that the cop told him something reasonable and the black dude responded positively to it. With the given context I could easily conclude both sides handled this inadequately, except cops don't have that option.

Of course he is not "out there to hurt cops." He and the other protesters simply saw police detaining some people and they came over to try to get them freed despite complete ignorance of the reason they were even being detained. The idea that he was "protecting himself" is ridiculous since they were the aggressors that approached the police. The police clearly didn't give 2 shits about that group of protesters until they came to interfere with what they were doing.

The litmus test for whether police behaved badly should be whether or not any other citizen would be allowed to do the same. If I would go to jail for beating people with batons or shoving down an old man then the police should too. Unless you're a blind zealot you should immediately realize the inverse to be true as well. Are there any other professions where you think it should be allowed to hit them in the face without going to jail? Wal-mart cashier? Postal employee? Pizza delivery man? I'm curious to hear your list and if you can break it down to which it's okay to punch vs which it's okay to slap that would be great since you seem to think there is a huge difference between the two.




The irony here is that literally 2 pages back in this thread I was agreeing with Loco in calling out "the right" for their hypocrisy in saying they support small government and personal liberty but then defending police that are trying to quell peaceful protests.

Here's what I said then:

Amen [to Loco]. Like I've been saying, people have no consistency in their beliefs. It's all tribalism where the goodness or badness of anything depends entirely on who is doing it.

So how did Loco and I go from agreeing to each other to him calling me a bootlicker in less than 24 hours? It's very obvious: Just read the above quote again. It's all tribalism. Loco is no better than the right-wingers online, he's just on the other side of the spectrum. It's why he reposts a tweet of "police attack black man and smash his wheelchair" when literally 5 minutes on google would have showed him that's just complete bullshit. Police didn't "attack" him - they didn't even approach him, the handicapped guy came at them and was the aggressor. They also didn't smash his wheelchair - a wheel on a removable axle came off, no big deal. But none of that matters to Loco. All that matters is black life = good, blue uniform = bad. End of story. I'll at least give you credit since you admitted to being initially wrong once you saw more context.

"Unless you're a blind zealot you should immediately realize the inverse to be true as well. Are there any other professions where you think it should be allowed to hit them in the face without going to jail? Wal-mart cashier? Postal employee? Pizza delivery man? I'm curious to hear your list and if you can break it down to which it's okay to punch vs which it's okay to slap that would be great since you seem to think there is a huge difference between the two."

Which one of the professions you named also allow you to harass people and make them fear for their life, or even murder them with near total impunity? Which of these professions serve to uphold centuries of structural racism which have ruined generations of hard-working families? None? If a fascist dictator manages to come to power through a coup d'état, who is it that will enforce the laws for this dictator? Is it bakers? Cashiers? Pizza deliverymen? No, it isn't. So why do you think there is an equivalence here between slapping a cop and slapping a baker? Do you have any clue what kind of person signs up to become a cop? They have 4 times the rates of domestic violence than the rest of the population for a reason. You tell me that I'm tribalistic and if I did more research I'd see that what I believe about what happenned here is bullshit, yet you don't see that this precisely your problem, and that's why you can make the most absurd false equivalency fallacy here.

The black guy wasn't "the aggressor". The crowd was peacefully chanting "let them go" and tried to stop the cops from accessing the car. That's an act of civil disobedience, because they believed the protestors they arrested were innocent. Remember that they are supposed to serve the people? They are not supposed to have an easy time of it. You might think "gosh, that's annoying, they're trying to get in their car and people won't let them" and project your own frustrations onto the situation, imagining that they are just like you. But they are not. They are paid to be frustrated. This is their job. Their job is not to get out of this situation as fast as possible and start beating people up because they are in their way.

Were you aware of why the two women were arrested in the first place? And why these protestors stormed to try to convince the cops to release them? No, you weren't. You still are not aware of it, you just assume that the cops must have had a good reason, because "most cops are good". You also assumed that the black guy punched them, and that's why they reacted the way they did, and that they arrested him as a result of this. You were proven wrong by me on both of these things, yet you still try to paint yourself as the reasonable one who was on point the whole time, while I'm irrationally tribalistic, and you defend these officers in the most pathetic way possible. That's what makes you a bootlicker.

Also, we weren't in agreement. You said "amen" to me but I did not agree with what you said. I said it wasn't just "left vs right tribalism". You were just able to see blatant hypocrisy on the side of the right, but that doesn't make us in agreement about what you personally concluded outside of that.

Also, the more I think about it, the more it would make sense if the weapon wasn't his. Obviously there is no way to know, but if I had been in his shoes and I had illegally brought a weapon to a protest in the back of my chair, I would have never put myself on the line for those two women. Doing so turns his initial courage and solidarity into something really reckless, because obviously he is likely to get arrested and they'll search him. It does not make logical sense to bring a weapon there as a disabled person especially, but it makes even less sense to get physical with cops knowing you have that weapon illegally.

It's not exactly a new practice for cops:

"Members of Baltimore Police Department’s Gun Trace Task Force, an elite squad with responsibility for taking illegal firearms off the city’s streets, kept replica weapons in their cars in case they “accidentally hit somebody,” a former detective told a court.

Maurice Ward, who served with the unit, made the claim as he gave evidence during the trial of two colleagues accused of crimes including robbery, extortion, drug-dealing and faking evidence.

Ward is one of six officers who have pleaded guilty to fraud and racketeering charges.

He told the US District Court in Baltimore the unit’s supervisor, Sergeant Wayne Jenkins, instructed officers to carry BB guns “in case we accidentally hit somebody or got into a shoot-out, so we could plant them'."


Still, I think it'd be insane to plant a weapon in this situation, it's not like they injured the guy severely. It's a very bizarre situation.

On July 18 2020 09:13 Loco wrote: Correct, I didn't say it was a hoax, so you lied. And yes, I added more information to the one-sided propaganda machine that you fell for, which happened to be during a coup. During a coup you have even more reason to be critical of what you see (but you weren't, since you are a cheerleader of coups when it serves capital). During a coup you have to pay very close attention to what the population says, especially the poorest section, in order to know what to support. As always, as an anarchist, it's about picking the lesser evil when you know the state is inherently authoritarian no matter how it brands itself.

Sure thing, you just provided information claiming that it was a false-flag attack to hurt the dictatorship, this doesnt mean you think its a hoax or that you support the dictatorship, how silly of me lol.

You do like authoritarianism, you are just too dumb to know what it is. You think authoritarianism is a small mob of poor people taking down a statue or destroying a McDonald's, but you don't think Wall Street owning the country and continuing to create and funnel wealth upwards during a pandemic while working people receive peanuts is authoritarian. You also don't think it's authoritarian to dine on the mutilated corpses of innocent beings, or control every action of people inside a factory day after day. It's authoritarian to destroy property through rage but it's not authoritarian to destroy people through greed and narcissism and turn them into machines or property for your own ends, or the ends of capital.

Pretty ironic that you say I'm too dumb to know what authoritarianism is and you then list of immoral things to do but aren't actually authoritarian. This might be news to you but you don't control every acton of people who work for you, did your boss ask you to pull down your pants and bend over and he told you everybody else complied too? because that would explain your views on labor.

You also don't think it's authoritarian to dine on the mutilated corpses of innocent beings

What does that even fucking mean?. Its like arguing with a crazy hobo lol.

"The medicine is worse than the sickness" only when it is convenient for you. If the marketplace of ideas decided that communism was worth a try, you would immediately support a police state crushing it. That's why you championed the idea of branding Antifa a terror organization. You know what it takes to create your free market utopia, Pinochet showed it to you, and don't worry, you'll have a chance to see it be tried again, and your views will be clarified even to yourself then.

Antifa can make a community and discuss al your commie ideas all they want, but you don't get to bash people's heads in with locks and batons and you don't get to infringe other's rights, sorry.

If communism were ushered peacefully and democraticallly then so be it, obviously this would mean that property wouldn't be taken by force but that new means of productions would be built and ran by its workers and if your theories are right then it would render capitalism obsolete but I'd probably leave the country to live in a capitalist society, perhaps you should try to do the same and move into a society you preach would be oh so much better, but I suspect you'll keep suffering the slings and arrows of the capitalism you despise until your last breath because the self-proclaimed "truth seeker" would rather play martyr in his imaginary prison than actually seek anything beyond it

Deep down you know I'm right on that boldened part, but the hubris blinds you to ever admit it to yourself, let alone publicly.

imo it's equivilent, or rather it should be taken as an accepted principle. it's seriously ridiculous to condemn an entire profession over it's role in racial oppression, particularly in such a petty way. I could slap random journalists or academics i don't even know for their professions centuries long role in racial oppression as well, it would make zero sense. BLM will continue to be successful if it does what it has done in the past: focus on the institutional failures of the police, and exposes the injustices of the mass incarceration system.

These anecdotal video arguments are not even interesting.

If communism were ushered peacefully and democraticallly then so be it, obviously this would mean that property wouldn't be taken by force but that new means of productions would be built and ran by its workers and if your theories are right then it would render capitalism obsolete but I'd probably leave the country to live in a capitalist society, perhaps you should try to do the same and move into a society you preach would be oh so much better, but I suspect you'll keep suffering the slings and arrows of the capitalism you despise until your last breath because the self-proclaimed "truth seeker" would rather play martyr in his imaginary prison than actually seek anything beyond it

You have no idea what you are talking about, you imagine that communism and capitalism could co-exist on this planet, which is.... wow.

The only community of people who don't have to deal with capitalism are 6 feet into the ground dude. If what you mean is a more egalitarian society, then sure, I'd love to live in the most egalitarian society alive today, but are all indigenous communities, and you don't get to live in an indigenous community like it's a fucking airbnb you idiot. But let's just say that I had the connections and could do it, I would also need to not have a preexisting chronic illness that requires modern medicine, which I do, and which you know that I do because I told you the last time you asked me about Rojava, so no, I don't think that "deep down" you are right, because you're obviously not. Thanks for the 2 cent "in reality you actually like capitalism" airmchair analysis.

On July 22 2020 05:40 blackjacki2 wrote: The litmus test for whether police behaved badly should be whether or not any other citizen would be allowed to do the same. If I would go to jail for beating people with batons or shoving down an old man then the police should too. Unless you're a blind zealot you should immediately realize the inverse to be true as well. Are there any other professions where you think it should be allowed to hit them in the face without going to jail? Wal-mart cashier? Postal employee? Pizza delivery man? I'm curious to hear your list and if you can break it down to which it's okay to punch vs which it's okay to slap that would be great since you seem to think there is a huge difference between the two.

You can't have the same standards for cops and other people. Cops are authority figures and have legal rights and obligations which on other professional has. They're in high-intensity situations like this one on a daily basis, if you cannot distinguish between a small group of people that are acting on emotions but mean no actual harm and actual criminals then you should definitely not be a cop, or at least take some time off.

I can see your standards working in an anarcho-society where there is militia and not institutions with centralized authority.

Otherwise I'm with Stroggoz on this one, the video and the situation itself mean absolutely nothing (as I've stated before)

On July 22 2020 08:42 Stroggoz wrote: imo it's equivilent, or rather it should be taken as an accepted principle. it's seriously ridiculous to condemn an entire profession over it's role in racial oppression, particularly in such a petty way. I could slap random journalists or academics i don't even know for their professions centuries long role in racial oppression as well, it would make zero sense. BLM will continue to be successful if it does what it has done in the past: focus on the institutional failures of the police, and exposes the injustices of the mass incarceration system. These anecdotal video arguments are not even interesting.

Journalists and academics are a lot more accountable to the public and they can challenge and attack each other on a moral basis without necessarily losing their jobs. Cops cannot. They are trained to stick together and back up oppressors and maintain "law & order" no matter how corrupt a government administration is. Their job is to follow orders from above, it's not to have an interest in the truth and justice. Those rare ones who do act out of morally good intentions and seek the truth get the boot. So no, there is no equivalence.

In principle, policing is fine, but only if it can be held accountable by the people they serve. Policing for a corrupt state is never morally fine, it should always be morally condemned, and that's where you go wrong in your analysis. You might not care about the role they play in racist oppression, which is obviously wrong, but you should at least care about the inverted totalitarianism of the US, and realize that those who defend it and its global hegemony are on morally problematic grounds. Cops perpetrate violence on behalf of the state necessarily. Cops are the system necessarily. Journalists and academics are not; they can be or they can not be.

On July 22 2020 07:41 Loco wrote: "Unless you're a blind zealot you should immediately realize the inverse to be true as well. Are there any other professions where you think it should be allowed to hit them in the face without going to jail? Wal-mart cashier? Postal employee? Pizza delivery man? I'm curious to hear your list and if you can break it down to which it's okay to punch vs which it's okay to slap that would be great since you seem to think there is a huge difference between the two." Which one of the professions you named also allow you to harass people and make them fear for their life, or even murder them with near total impunity? Which of these professions serve to uphold centuries of structural racism which have ruined generations of hard-working families? None? If a fascist dictator manages to come to power through a coup d'état, who is it that will enforce the laws for this dictator? Is it bakers? Cashiers? Pizza deliverymen? No, it isn't. So why do you think there is an equivalence here between slapping a cop and slapping a baker? Do you have any clue what kind of person signs up to become a cop? They have 4 times the rates of domestic violence than the rest of the population for a reason. You tell me that I'm tribalistic and if I did more research I'd see that what I believe about what happenned here is bullshit, yet you don't see that this precisely your problem, and that's why you can make the most absurd false equivalency fallacy here. The black guy wasn't "the aggressor". The crowd was peacefully chanting "let them go" and tried to stop the cops from accessing the car. That's an act of civil disobedience, because they believed the protestors they arrested were innocent. Remember that they are supposed to serve the people? They are not supposed to have an easy time of it. You might think "gosh, that's annoying, they're trying to get in their car and people won't let them" and project your own frustrations onto the situation, imagining that they are just like you. But they are not. They are paid to be frustrated. This is their job. Their job is not to get out of this situation as fast as possible and start beating people up because they are in their way. Were you aware of why the two women were arrested in the first place? And why these protestors stormed to try to convince the cops to release them? No, you weren't. You still are not aware of it, you just assume that the cops must have had a good reason, because "most cops are good". You also assumed that the black guy punched them, and that's why they reacted the way they did, and that they arrested him as a result of this. You were proven wrong by me on both of these things, yet you still try to paint yourself as the reasonable one who was on point the whole time, while I'm irrationally tribalistic, and you defend these officers in the most pathetic way possible. That's what makes you a bootlicker. Also, we weren't in agreement. You said "amen" to me but I did not agree with what you said. I said it wasn't just "left vs right tribalism". You were just able to see blatant hypocrisy on the side of the right, but that doesn't make us in agreement about what you personally concluded outside of that.

Wow, you couldn't have made my point for me any better even if you tried. Thanks for that.

Were you aware of why the two women were arrested in the first place? And why these protestors stormed to try to convince the cops to release them? No, you weren't. You still are not aware of it, you just assume that the cops must have had a good reason, because "most cops are good".

The hypocrisy here is palpable. If you recall, here's my post I made when you posted your video. I'll bold the relevant portion for you.

On July 20 2020 10:01 blackjacki2 wrote: That video is out of context so I won't make any judgements about it, but the lefties that are implying that anyone thats in a wheelchair is just a harmless cripple is exactly what I expected from them.

Oh look at those massive assumptions I'm making by saying let's wait for more details. On the contrary, you and the people who are shouting "LET THEM GO" and posting videos of "LAPD ATTACK BLACK MAN AND SMASH HIS WHEELCHAIR" who also have no fucking idea why the 2 women were being detained are the ones that are assuming the cops are bad and they must be doing bad things.

That's the difference between me and you. I'm capable of looking at things on a case by case basis, using critical thinking, looking at details, evidence, context, and forming my own opinion. I literally can tell where you stand on anything just by looking at leftists on twitter. You can find posts of me criticizing police when they do a bad job and you can find posts of me praising police when they do a good job. I'm pretty confident the same can't be said for you.

So you're just going to dismiss my blatantly exposing your faulty logic with the weakest imaginable "wow you made my point" retort? All right then.

Yes, you see, that's precisely what I was talking about. You didn't know the details, and then you assumed that the cops must be given the benefit of the doubt. And you reminded us that the black man was "an aggressor" who "punched an officer" (two factually wrong statements, designed to mislead us about the situation in order to preserve your prejudices). I assume the opposite, you're quite correct in that: the cops should not be given the benefit of the doubt. I have every reason to make that assumption, and I have a lot of evidence to justify it, while you cannot be assed to give a single reason for why you believe what you believe, so you go with empty rhetoric like "wow you couldn't have made my point better". Are you so afraid to be shown that your liberal conditioning is wrong that you won't even engage in an argument? Seems to be the case.

"That's the difference between me and you. I'm capable of looking at things on a case by case basis, using critical thinking, looking at details, evidence, context, and forming my own opinion."

Oh please. The guy who gave us the "born out of wedlock" statistic to justify why black people are in prison is trying to school me about proper use of context and evidence. What's more, if that were true, you couldn't listen to the Joe Rogan podcast without sneering every couple minutes and you couldn't stand to have a look at Tim Pool's stuff, yet you like them both. Instead of listening to these people you would be educating yourself. You are the cliché that you imagine that I am, ranting on about tribalism, totally blind to your own emotional responses while not being educated on even the basics of the things you are talking about. You exist in a false space of neutrality on the internet which basically has the habit of siding with oppressors and anti-intellectualism. That's also 'tribalism', it is its own echo chamber. Unlike you I pay attention to the whole political spectrum and I consume media from all sources.

On July 22 2020 08:53 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 22 2020 08:42 Stroggoz wrote: imo it's equivilent, or rather it should be taken as an accepted principle. it's seriously ridiculous to condemn an entire profession over it's role in racial oppression, particularly in such a petty way. I could slap random journalists or academics i don't even know for their professions centuries long role in racial oppression as well, it would make zero sense. BLM will continue to be successful if it does what it has done in the past: focus on the institutional failures of the police, and exposes the injustices of the mass incarceration system. These anecdotal video arguments are not even interesting. journalists and academics are a lot more accountable to the public and they can challenge and attack each other on a moral basis without necessarily losing their jobs. cops cannot. they are trained to stick together and back up oppressors and maintain law & order no matter how corrupt a government administration is. their job is to follow orders from above, it's not to have an interest in the truth and justice. those rare ones who do act out of morally good intentions and seek the truth get the boot. so no, there is no equivalent. in principle, policing is fine, but only if it can be held accountable by the people they serve. but in principle, policing for a corrupt state is never morally fine, and that's where you go wrong in your analysis. you might not care about racism but you should at least care about the inverted totalitarianism of the US, and realize that those who defend it and its global hegemony are on morally problematic grounds.

There's nothing wrong with the value judgement i made in my analysis; judging someone based off their profession is completely ridiculous, even if they are an SS officer. The whole thing about academics having more freedom than police officers means they have less of an excuse. I've beleived for quite some time now that academics in our society who lie on things like the global economy or climate change are often worse than those under nazi germany, because the consequences of their lies are sometimes worse, and they don't even have to do it, they are not violently punished for not going along with the status quo (unlike in totalitarian societies).

Ofc i care about racism, and i've spent a lot of time trying to expose the delusion and lies of people enforcing the global hegemonic system. I havn't really paid attention to these george floy'd issues because i only have time to research a few different things, and it seems minor to me, police brutality is not a problem in NZ.

On July 22 2020 08:52 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On July 22 2020 05:40 blackjacki2 wrote: The litmus test for whether police behaved badly should be whether or not any other citizen would be allowed to do the same. If I would go to jail for beating people with batons or shoving down an old man then the police should too. Unless you're a blind zealot you should immediately realize the inverse to be true as well. Are there any other professions where you think it should be allowed to hit them in the face without going to jail? Wal-mart cashier? Postal employee? Pizza delivery man? I'm curious to hear your list and if you can break it down to which it's okay to punch vs which it's okay to slap that would be great since you seem to think there is a huge difference between the two. You can't have the same standards for cops and other people. Cops are authority figures and have legal rights and obligations which on other professional has. They're in high-intensity situations like this one on a daily basis, if you cannot distinguish between a small group of people that are acting on emotions but mean no actual harm and actual criminals then you should definitely not be a cop, or at least take some time off. I can see your standards working in an anarcho-society where there is militia and not institutions with centralized authority. Otherwise I'm with Stroggoz on this one, the video and the situation itself mean absolutely nothing (as I've stated before)

I think not hitting people in the face is definitely a standard we can have for everyone. You may say that I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one

On July 22 2020 09:20 Loco wrote: So you're just going to dismiss my blatantly exposing your faulty logic with the weakest imaginable "wow you made my point" retort? All right then. Yes, you see, that's precisely what I was talking about. You didn't know the details, and then you assumed that the cops must be given the benefit of the doubt. And you reminded us that the black man was "an aggressor" who "punched an officer" (two factually wrong statements, designed to mislead us about the situation in order to preserve your prejudices). I assume the opposite, you're quite correct in that: the cops should not be given the benefit of the doubt. I have every reason to make that assumption, and I have a lot of evidence to justify it, while you cannot be assed to give a single reason for why you believe what you believe, so you go with empty rhetoric like "wow you couldn't have made my point better". Are you so afraid to be shown that your liberal conditioning is wrong that you won't even engage in an argument? Seems to be the case. "That's the difference between me and you. I'm capable of looking at things on a case by case basis, using critical thinking, looking at details, evidence, context, and forming my own opinion." Oh please. The guy who gave us the "born out of wedlock" statistic to justify why black people are in prison is trying to school me about proper use of context and evidence. What's more, if that were true, you couldn't listen to the Joe Rogan podcast without sneering every couple minutes and you couldn't stand to have a look at Tim Pool's stuff, yet you like them both. Instead of listening to these people you would be educating yourself. You are the cliché that you imagine that I am, ranting on about tribalism, totally blind to your own emotional responses while not being educated on even the basics of the things you are talking about. You exist in a false space of neutrality on the internet which basically has the habit of siding with oppressors and anti-intellectualism. That's also 'tribalism', it is its own echo chamber. Unlike you I pay attention to the whole political spectrum and I consume media from all sources.

What's left to say? You're out here implying it's okay to hit police in the face and citing domestic violence statistics as justification. How is anyone supposed to respond to such nonsense?

Also there's not much else to say about the video. If you saw police attacking a black man and smashing his wheelchair then I'm afraid our perceptions of reality are so different that we are never going to see eye to eye. You're freeze framing videos to show it was a slap instead of a punch like that matters to anyone outside of your bubble. They both carry the exact same charge - battery on a peace officer. Do you think a defense attorney would be high fiving themselves over that argument the same way you are?

On July 22 2020 09:30 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On July 22 2020 08:53 Loco wrote:   On July 22 2020 08:42 Stroggoz wrote: imo it's equivilent, or rather it should be taken as an accepted principle. it's seriously ridiculous to condemn an entire profession over it's role in racial oppression, particularly in such a petty way. I could slap random journalists or academics i don't even know for their professions centuries long role in racial oppression as well, it would make zero sense. BLM will continue to be successful if it does what it has done in the past: focus on the institutional failures of the police, and exposes the injustices of the mass incarceration system. These anecdotal video arguments are not even interesting. journalists and academics are a lot more accountable to the public and they can challenge and attack each other on a moral basis without necessarily losing their jobs. cops cannot. they are trained to stick together and back up oppressors and maintain law & order no matter how corrupt a government administration is. their job is to follow orders from above, it's not to have an interest in the truth and justice. those rare ones who do act out of morally good intentions and seek the truth get the boot. so no, there is no equivalent. in principle, policing is fine, but only if it can be held accountable by the people they serve. but in principle, policing for a corrupt state is never morally fine, and that's where you go wrong in your analysis. you might not care about racism but you should at least care about the inverted totalitarianism of the US, and realize that those who defend it and its global hegemony are on morally problematic grounds. There's nothing wrong with the value judgement i made in my analysis; judging someone based off their profession is completely ridiculous, even if they are an SS officer. The whole thing about academics having more freedom than police officers means they have less of an excuse. I've beleived for quite some time now that academics in our society who lie on things like the global economy or climate change are often worse than those under nazi germany, because the consequences of their lies are sometimes worse, and they don't even have to do it, they are not violently punished for not going along with the status quo (unlike in totalitarian societies). Ofc i care about racism, and i've spent a lot of time trying to expose the delusion and lies of people enforcing the global hegemonic system. I havn't really paid attention to these george floy'd issues because i only have time to research a few different things, and it seems minor to me, police brutality is not a problem in NZ.

Yes, I think it's wrong, because it misrepresents what ACAB stands for. It's not about the individual. When the SS officer is an SS officer, he has to be judged as an SS officer. That is to say, he has to be judged on the basis of his actions demanded by his role. That doesn't mean that this person is reducible to the status of their role in society, and that it should follow them for the rest of their life. You seem to be mistakenly assuming that I am trying to dehumanize and decomplexify the people who are in these roles. I am not. I am simply aware of the determining factors of their behavior at the time when they are in those roles, and I am saying those roles are not comparable with other roles when you have life and death power and unaccountability and they don't.

Yes, they have less of an excuse, except when you take into account social reproduction it doesn't really matter. At least "cancel culture" now makes it more difficult for academics and journalists to be overt bigots. Cops on the other hand manage to avoid this. It took all 50 states and protests in 14 countries in order to get this one cop who killed George Floyd a fucking 2nd degree murder charge. He was going to get away with this and there was going to be no justice. And what, he is still going to touch a 1 million dollar retirement pension, is that justice?

If the hand don't fist, you must acquit

On July 22 2020 08:52 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On July 22 2020 05:40 blackjacki2 wrote: The litmus test for whether police behaved badly should be whether or not any other citizen would be allowed to do the same. If I would go to jail for beating people with batons or shoving down an old man then the police should too. Unless you're a blind zealot you should immediately realize the inverse to be true as well. Are there any other professions where you think it should be allowed to hit them in the face without going to jail? Wal-mart cashier? Postal employee? Pizza delivery man? I'm curious to hear your list and if you can break it down to which it's okay to punch vs which it's okay to slap that would be great since you seem to think there is a huge difference between the two. You can't have the same standards for cops and other people. Cops are authority figures and have legal rights and obligations which on other professional has. They're in high-intensity situations like this one on a daily basis, if you cannot distinguish between a small group of people that are acting on emotions but mean no actual harm and actual criminals then you should definitely not be a cop, or at least take some time off.

i was a little hesitant in my statement about this before. Cops in america have to deal with the absurdity that a huge amount of the public carry guns with them. I wouldn't be suprised if that was one of the leading contributing factors amoung police violence there, amoung racism. The thing is even when you compare it to a controlled variable like murder rates in NZ, america's police violence is still far greater after taking racism into account. (as in the proportion of black-white people being murdered by police, they murder blacks twice as much). The amount of weapons police have on them is ridiculous compared to the society i live in. The countries with astronomically high police violence are those like venezeuala and hondorus/el salvador.

On July 22 2020 09:41 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 22 2020 09:20 Loco wrote: So you're just going to dismiss my blatantly exposing your faulty logic with the weakest imaginable "wow you made my point" retort? All right then. Yes, you see, that's precisely what I was talking about. You didn't know the details, and then you assumed that the cops must be given the benefit of the doubt. And you reminded us that the black man was "an aggressor" who "punched an officer" (two factually wrong statements, designed to mislead us about the situation in order to preserve your prejudices). I assume the opposite, you're quite correct in that: the cops should not be given the benefit of the doubt. I have every reason to make that assumption, and I have a lot of evidence to justify it, while you cannot be assed to give a single reason for why you believe what you believe, so you go with empty rhetoric like "wow you couldn't have made my point better". Are you so afraid to be shown that your liberal conditioning is wrong that you won't even engage in an argument? Seems to be the case. "That's the difference between me and you. I'm capable of looking at things on a case by case basis, using critical thinking, looking at details, evidence, context, and forming my own opinion." Oh please. The guy who gave us the "born out of wedlock" statistic to justify why black people are in prison is trying to school me about proper use of context and evidence. What's more, if that were true, you couldn't listen to the Joe Rogan podcast without sneering every couple minutes and you couldn't stand to have a look at Tim Pool's stuff, yet you like them both. Instead of listening to these people you would be educating yourself. You are the cliché that you imagine that I am, ranting on about tribalism, totally blind to your own emotional responses while not being educated on even the basics of the things you are talking about. You exist in a false space of neutrality on the internet which basically has the habit of siding with oppressors and anti-intellectualism. That's also 'tribalism', it is its own echo chamber. Unlike you I pay attention to the whole political spectrum and I consume media from all sources. What's left to say? You're out here implying it's okay to hit police in the face and citing domestic violence statistics as justification. How is anyone supposed to respond to such nonsense? Also there's not much else to say about the video. If you saw police attacking a black man and smashing his wheelchair then I'm afraid our perceptions of reality are so different that we are never going to see eye to eye. You're freeze framing videos to show it was a slap instead of a punch like that matters to anyone outside of your bubble. They both carry the exact same charge - battery on a peace officer. Do you think a defense attorney would be high fiving themselves over that argument the same way you are?

no, I did not cite that as justification, I cited it as an extra piece of information to show you that you were committing a false equivalence fallacy.

"peace officer" lol, what a fucking bootlicker. you have a nice night.