Jump to content
Ragitsu

[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

Unfortunately treating 'humans with power' with the same exact responsibilities as 'humans without power' is a not-great proposition.

 

This doesn't mean you need a legal framework to enforce those responsibilities.  But when you cannot create compensatory factors to resolve those issues, you have to enforce it legally.  Ideally, you don't have to.  But a country can't run on ideals alone - people don't operate that way.

 

 

 

For the record, as frustrating as you may find it to be on boards like this, engaging in people who disagree with you honestly is important.  Finding those people you can have conversations with is vital.  Not dogpiling is important, as is giving people the space to rationalize and engage the thinking part of your brain.

 

Because even with real people who I know are real, and people who others' know are real, trying to talk online about disagreements on politics is a literal world of "quoting witty-sounding maxims that may not have anything to do with context, using memetic bullcrap to 'counter' every point, followed by shouting that if biden wins we'll all lose" and never actually responding to a single sentence that has been said.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Holding the powerful responsible is the very heart of democracy. As for the rest, I do not understand you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Badger said:

I will say most so called anarchist I have met seemed to be more of the dictatorship of people who I agree with style of govt. For whatever that entails.

That is not what anarchism is. Not that I hold to it (I definitely don't) but this is what happens when nobody bothers to study philosophy of politics/government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I was wondering if there was something more specific. I'm not really familiar with the PNW's history of settlement, or what forms any displacement of local first nations took.

They are not pretty. Aside from the usual practice of tearing up pacts with First Nations whenever they became inconvenient, there were missionaries sent in ahead of the settlers who were often brutal to the people under their care. Narcissa Whitman is a prime example -- she treated her charges so terribly that they and their parents got fed up and killed her.

 

Oregon was also intended by its founders to be a "white utopia". There was a provision written into the state Constitution prohibiting African-Americans from even entering the state (out of fear they'd take the Natives' side). This was their solution to avoiding the slavery question. Eventually, of course, they did settle in Oregon, but the last Black Exclusion laws were repealed in 1926. It took a great deal longerr to institute the symbolic genture of taking out the constitutional provision.

 

If someone settles in territory that is not theirs, what makes them different from an invader? What is the difference between an explorer and a conqueror?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

PR spin.

Perhaps, but I still find it a philosophically interesting question, in part because there is no pat answer.

 

I have experienced white privilege in several ways. I have been in positions where I could have been shot but the police restrained themselves and sent me to a hospital rather than jail. I've lived all my life on a West Coast that originally belongs to other peoples and cultures. There are probably all sorts of ways I have benefited from white privilege that I am completely unaware of.  It's unavoidable -- but that doesn't make it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

That is not what anarchism is. Not that I hold to it (I definitely don't) but this is what happens when nobody bothers to study philosophy of politics/government.

Yeah I know it isn't, I should have said "anarchists". (I was lazy typing last night)

 

I can definitely agree the knowledge of history and government has proven painful to watch.  Note: I also seem to see people get libertarianism  and anarchy mixed up a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

They are not pretty. Aside from the usual practice of tearing up pacts with First Nations whenever they became inconvenient, there were missionaries sent in ahead of the settlers who were often brutal to the people under their care. Narcissa Whitman is a prime example -- she treated her charges so terribly that they and their parents got fed up and killed her.

 

Oregon was also intended by its founders to be a "white utopia". There was a provision written into the state Constitution prohibiting African-Americans from even entering the state (out of fear they'd take the Natives' side). This was their solution to avoiding the slavery question. Eventually, of course, they did settle in Oregon, but the last Black Exclusion laws were repealed in 1926. It took a great deal longerr to institute the symbolic genture of taking out the constitutional provision.

 

If someone settles in territory that is not theirs, what makes them different from an invader? What is the difference between an explorer and a conqueror?

Hmm, African-Americans joining the Native peoples?  Would have been an interesting scenario. Lot of questions to answer. Like would the Native population  see them as invaders, too, for example.  I do know different tribes treated runaway slaves they encountered with varied attitudes.  Might have to research that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That theory might have arisen out of a mindset that lumps all dark-skinned people together, regardless of context. We've seen that that still hasn't gone away. Or recognition, conscious or unconscious, that both groups had cause to resent white people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder...hope?...if this is going to backfire.  Trump pushes it as a "law and order" move;  that'll placate his base but hey, there's that solid bloc that will NEVER move away.  And there's the bloc that's already had it WAY past here with His Imperial Donaldness.  IF there's any middle ground/undecided left...putting federal troops into one city might be one thing, but into multiple...the look to me is a tyrant.  ESPECIALLY given that he's blasted the liberal Democrats, making it an implicitly partisan, arguably flat-out punitive action.  On that read, it's totally the move of a tyrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

That theory might have arisen out of a mindset that lumps all dark-skinned people together, regardless of context. We've seen that that still hasn't gone away. Or recognition, conscious or unconscious, that both groups had cause to resent white people.

True. I was also trying to remember how the 2 groups did interact without white involvement.  But, I did figure, in that scenario, there wouldn't be a real reason to differentiate the interlopers based on skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

I wonder...hope?...if this is going to backfire.  Trump pushes it as a "law and order" move;  that'll placate his base but hey, there's that solid bloc that will NEVER move away.  And there's the bloc that's already had it WAY past here with His Imperial Donaldness.  IF there's any middle ground/undecided left...putting federal troops into one city might be one thing, but into multiple...the look to me is a tyrant.  ESPECIALLY given that he's blasted the liberal Democrats, making it an implicitly partisan, arguably flat-out punitive action.  On that read, it's totally the move of a tyrant.


People keep talking like there’s still gonna be an election in November. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen so many, actual real people, on social media, people only two or three 'jumps away', absolutely okay with this.  "They deserve it", "they shouldn't have done anything wrong".

 

Please, why?  Why is it in this state where there's literally people grabbed off the streets for protesting and so much of the country thinks it's perfectly fine and dandy?  What can actually be done about it productively?

 

We've literally had people on this forum shout 'sedition' at the other people on this board.  This sort of thing has to be actually faced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

I've seen so many, actual real people, on social media, people only two or three 'jumps away', absolutely okay with this.  "They deserve it", "they shouldn't have done anything wrong".

 

Please, why?  Why is it in this state where there's literally people grabbed off the streets for protesting and so much of the country thinks it's perfectly fine and dandy?  What can actually be done about it productively?

 

We've literally had people on this forum shout 'sedition' at the other people on this board.  This sort of thing has to be actually faced.

 

There has to be something in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Hopcroft, if I can ask, how 'bad' is it out there?  In terms of damage from the protests?  I would like to counter the justification people have been throwing around for this, but would prefer actual resources.

Most of the property damage is confined to downtown, particularly that section of it where the city, county, and federal offices live. Life during the day seems to be going on in a state of close to normality -- many of the businesses and restaurants are closed, but many f those would have been closed anyway because of the pandemic. Yes, a lot of statuary has come down, but much of that should have been torn down anyway once it became clear what it represented (though many wonder what crime "The Elk" committed...) Most of the rest is just broken windows and graffiti. There hasn't been much looting to spesk of, and only occasional arson (with suspicion in those few cases of whether there's a "false flag" going on -- it is well-known that officers are capable of infiltrating the protests to cause escalation).

 

After the sun goes down, the protests begin. Whether there is violence will usually depend on who decides to escalate the situation and to what level. There is a clear dividing line in the minds of most people on the ground between the enemy and themselves. And you could accurately say that the more things are escalated the more the federal presence appears justified -- so many times they are doing the escalating themselves, as was the case when they gassed the mayor last night.

 

Now I'm not an objective source, but at the moment I can't think of any source that would be objective. Right now only one thing is in the middle of the road -- and that's roadkill.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...