TrickstaPriest

Keep in mind it's well within the power of the police to simply blockade a neighborhood, a township, a city, and provide no aid and prevent any aid to come. They don't even need to start a disaster, but they can, such as with the MOVE bombing. They are completely capable of destroying entire neighborhoods and there isn't a single thing anyone can do to stop them. It won't surprise me if (the authorities, be they police, NG, or other) essentially engineer to make entire neighborhoods collapse in cities that don't "cooperate" enough with their efforts. I fully understand rioters can be a dangerous force even to well armed police, but they have a power that not even the army is allowed to possess in this country, and you are going to see it exercised again and again. That's why I've ranted that protest is dead. That's also why this has gone beyond protest in some places - in some locations it's full blown riots. I don't like it, but I at least understand why this is going so far. But there are plenty of protests beyond the rioting... I just understand how people get pushed this far. I still think looters should face arrest.

The general reason why I ranted about this topic a couple days ago (edit- wow, felt like forever. edited this line, not the link): https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/05/buffalo-officers-suspended-shoving-man/

What I was thinking, too...

That's more appropriate for the politics thread, which I threw it in.

What's all this about? https://mobile.twitter.com/blakesmustache/status/1268535418137595905

IIRC one of the BLM requests/demands was "news should report on more black on black crime", from some time ago. I forget when I heard this, or how accurate it is, but it was literally to make 'white communities more uncomfortable by ignoring the crime occurring in the same city as theirs'. It's all swept under a rug, and my interpretation of that demand was BLM wanted that to stop.

It's sort of the 'every black offender is a violent, armed offender' treatment. And there are other people who were killed - a woman who's home was apparently invaded and she was shot while the police were looking for someone else (who was already in custody). But I don't know the details of that case, nor is there video... Which is part of why this galvanized so bad. It was, in part, photographs of a child fleeing a napalming attack that pushed the end of the Vietnam War. But I don't have time to deep dive on this, just throwing in my two cents on 'why this person'. The issue that black people face with police is a lot more complicated a problem than I can get into with broad strokes and little experience on the subject...

Police can feel danger from the general community (or a bunch of rioters), but this aspect of power is a necessary component of the balance of power of a state. Too much (edit: civilian power) becomes a problem, but too little is often an unsolvable problem for a country. You want neither to crumble, but the former event generally happens because of mismanagement... not rioting. I can't think of many instances in the entirety of world history (or maybe it's just not noteworthy?) in which the former happened because of a conflict of force with civilians. Police can be imposed upon by the general attitude or ideas of the masses, but they have the backing of the entire state and government. I don't generally 'lend them defense' because I see no reason to - they aren't as well protected as billionaires, but as an institution they are the direct mechanism by which the state imposes its power on the people (for good and for ill), and the state has every reason to empower it as much as they possibly can. (edit: I do, however, advocate more for individuals in the police force, than the mechanism of force itself, which I treat very differently) In terms of my feelings on the matter... And yeah, the looters aren't protesters. The fact that people in general are painting them as protesters is a huge problem - that's not unlike saying two thieves in the same town are the same if one of them shoots someone and one of them doesn't. And that's coloring all the parties as 'thieves/criminals' to begin with... but I'll use that analogy to be effective even on the people who think that way. The fact that forces are encouraging protesters to become looters, taking advantage of the 'panicky/animalistic attitude of the masses' to put the areas in danger in order to destroy that movement, is something that I've ranted about before. But in general I don't hold the protesters to a lower standard because I think less of them or think the attitude is excusable, I am more lenient because they are the ones upon whom the power acts upon, not whom is exercising the power to control these situations. The protesters almost never have any real control over the situation, even during the act of protest - they are merely subject to it.

I mean, it's more than that. A lot of people are on unemployment. A lot of people don't see the financial divide improving, even when they return to work. Return to what? What kind of career path or improvement do they expect? There's literally no hope for things to get better. That's my best guess from the people on the ground floor. Going up things don't get better. Because all of that is before we talk about other problems (like climate change, surveillance, control). As things escalate, our value as "Human Capital Stock" will drop. The world will essentially be owned by financial capitalists... people like Bezos, and all things will be to benefit them. How long will it be before there's no point in even giving people access to newer medicines, life extension technology? How long before the basics are unnecessary to maintain, because a few hundred people can run an entire nation? This is the stuff that has been talked about for over a decade in my school and tech circles. Unemployment soaring to record numbers has been the only thing that's lifted people's face off grinding on the cement for money. So 'amped up the crazy' is sure true, more than that, they aren't being crushed by spending every waking moment scraping together money for basics... for now. I don't know of a single person in my entire field that thinks things are going to get better, because we can't make any progress even on little things, let alone the issues that will literally destroy us. There's literally no future and no hope. -- Stuff like this doesn't help. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-bill-governments-not-so-secret-plan-scan-every-message-online

I agree on the looting and general rioting. There are tactics being used that seem almost like they are encouraging that. Given some incidents in past protests, I'm not surprised. I've had to learn a lot about 'walking routes' versus 'kettling' the last few days. People are also suggesting its police leaving out bricks as 'lures', but I haven't a clue. I do know it takes a lot of resources to leave out the amount of 'weapons' in some of those locations, so whoever is doing it is willing to spend money and time/resources. I'm sure there are a fair share of assholes too. The point you are making is literally why these actions are being done, though, whoever it is. It's very often done as sabotage for public causes, and it takes incredibly strong leadership at every location to control a protest this large. That's just not going to happen, and history shows that even with figures like MLK, that doesn't happen then. (the rioting after he died was a thing) I've been thinking about that in the context of the 99% protests, and how effective it is to get an 'intentionally crazy/bad person' in front of the camera to babble nonsense about your cause. There's also a definite presence of white supremacists in these riots too, which is why the statement "many of whom are black" does not surprise me. But I also know there are general looters and rioters - we've had a few arrests here over that, too. It's all of this I'm talking about when I'm talking about tactics. You are talking about 'doing it better', but I think it's literally impossible now. Protest is dead. (edit- adjusted for tone/point) ---- As far as intent, what I've gathered is this isn't really about one black person being dead. It's about black people being treated as "violent, armed offenders" in nearly every situation. But it's also about the fact that you have millions out of work because of coronavirus, and having never had the opportunity to go out and protest in years or decades before. It's a pretty known 'population control' strategy to keep people overworked and underpaid juuuust enough. But now I'm getting really cynical.

Yeah. As frustrated I am at the damage, the tactics being used on the protesters is a lot scarier to me.

If it makes you feel any better, this will probably be the biggest/last protest in human history that lasts any length of time. Because the counter tactics to incite damage and counter narrative have been so effective that it's entirely crushed the back of anyone who wants to protest anything related to this topic. This display has ensured it will probably never happen again. -- This isn't to excuse the ones who've done this. It's to highlight the brutality in which the group in front of the White House were treated because of incidents elsewhere. A number of protesters did it, so all must be treated as though they are equal threat. The difference between that and being angry at the police activity is the level of armament, legal protection, support, and intent of government, on top of how much those activities are hidden. I seem to explicitly recall an investigation/leak of a police authority having given toy guns out to their officers (with the implicit idea that they'd be left with bodies of people that were accidentally shot). But I can't find that resource right now... (ie- am I remembering correctly, or not?)

I mean, I'm sure there are. But I also can't think of any instances of major/leadership 'liberal sources' retweeting something like this? https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/local/new-mexico/2020/05/20/cowboys-for-trump-new-mexico-county-commissioner-couy-griffin-only-good-democrat-dead-democrat/5233131002/ (and if this is fake news, I'll be glad to hear it from someone here)

I'm sorry. -- AZ isn't looking great. The numbers aren't telling the whole picture, that the navajo nation is getting crushed by this, and there are hospitals already over capacity. Going from 200 to 400 new cases in short order, and keep in mind that's 'new' cases. It can take upwards of four weeks to discharge someone, so it's not exactly surprising that hospitals are already over capacity.

I wish you the best, Dan. You are a good person, and I hope things turn out well as they can be. Us all, we'll be here.

Yes, that's what I meant. I don't treat them as 'covid' deaths, but 'because covid wasn't controlled' deaths. That matters for certain contexts, but not for 'lethality' rates of covid. If that makes any sense. Yeah, that's what I meant. I don't know how much of that 'unaccounted' rate is directly covid. That's where it's hard to say. I agree in terms of 'reporting deaths per 100k people', but even the rate doesn't always map linearly to other counties. It's still interesting, and yes it does look like they didn't use any states like that, which can greatly create noise. I try and be a little cautious when I first get data, but it's reports like this one that had me say "the overreporting is likely nowhere near close to the underreporting". That's very good, as grim as it is. At this point I'm still eyeballing the local area reopening and deciding if/when I want to get a haircut. Heh.

Yeah. Even though I'm sure suicides are up (and traffic deaths are down), that does suggest that we could already be at a quarter of a million deaths from covid (or from hospital access shutdown due to not properly controlling covid). It does depend on sampling from the counties, though... (it's not likely to be a linear relationship to population)

Keep in mind that I'm arguing that a pandemic can cause a tremendous injury to a country even if it 'seems' like it 'isn't that bad'. And as people have said, it -will- impact the economy when you have that many deaths... and most importantly, a pandemic uniquely magnifies itself. It can be nothing or huge, with no in-between. It's why testing is so important - it gives you more active information on mitigating those risks, without having to have a total strategy. But the two-week lag is also an obstacle to places (like Sweden) who are trying to take a middle road. It's the hardest road to walk, doubly so for a pandemic.

I mean, propaganda works. If people want to continue to compare deaths to natural causes - the Spanish Flu's US death toll was 0.7% of the total population in a year. Heart disease is 0.2% and cancer 0.18% of the population every year. So, something that hit us so hard it won't leave our memory, the Spanish Flu, was still 'only' twice as much as our two normal/natural leading killers in this country put together.

I'm more saying that I'm not sure that our society knows what having millions die within a month or two actually looks like... Some people may talk big, 'less than a percent', but in general people in this country have no actual understanding of it (no matter who you are talking about). Comparing/adding cancer and heart disease fatalities is the only way to get close.

To reference your quote - I don't think people understand what 'millions of casualties' looks like. Trying to bury millions of casualties in a single country can probably be seen from space.

I couldn't tell you exactly, but I did say earlier that if New York closed just a single week earlier, it would have saved 75% of the lives lost in the location that lost the most lives in the US, one of the hardest-hit countries in the world. The estimate for 'likely dead so far' is more likely to be higher. You have to remember that a pandemic expands in such a way that you are talking about near-orders of magnitude of difference. I would think four hundred thousand to half a million dead so far is probably closer (front-loading a lot of the death but far from all), but 'no' response is unlikely. Unless we mean 'self management', and that could have reduced tolls somewhat (at the cost of a lot of people essentially doing everything they can to avoid work anyway, without any federal support...). The excess death data does suggest we could be closer to 140k deaths already. Some of the 'excess deaths' could be suicide, but keep in mind driving-deaths are down, and accident-related deaths is x4 higher than suicides under normal circumstances... Many more non-covid related excess deaths are very much deaths-by-health-problems left untreated because of Covid... but those are important to keep in mind because lack of treatment would continue even if we opened up the country and had major stresses on our health system. ie- those deaths would still be happening in all situations but covid being contained from the beginning. There's "in over your head" as well as "incompetency by design". Most of our leaders are not incentivized to act in our benefit in these situations. ex- see the stock selloffs. They just need to contain the situation 'enough', and make sure they get their cut. Yeah, I'm wholly cynical. I'd also argue I've been trying to get 'my' leaders fired and replaced for years now... In terms of Democrats in the House, that's the only field that they had any influence in. The President and the Senate seem to have much more influence, though I couldn't tell you much about how our government functions. A lot of the inaction was at the start - conversation about this in my own professional group started even before February IIRC, or within a day or two of it starting. I already had started my own quarantine procedures quite early, and I still probably got sick. Frankly, most of politics is making friends and CYA, that's why you especially can't let them CYA when they are failing at one of the most important events in decades. Push them to expend the connections they have and resources they've prepared. Your elected representatives can feel that pressure much stronger than your President.

In hindsight, my rant illustrates that it's not a simple mechanism to determine how far you can go in opening while managing a higher risk of coronavirus. Interesting and notable.

It's particularly the government's inability to prepare for this problem, and its apparent lack of support for small businesses and people, that has me livid. The distance/space being discussed, keep in mind, is the 'gap' between not an increase in coronavirus spread and social dissolution, but the gap between the 'explosive growth' of coronavirus spread and social dissolution. The world 'exponential' and 'explosive growth' is said a lot. It's wholly important because the general argument for 'reopening' re-frames it as an 'increase' in coronavirus deaths. It's not. It's comparable to a small trend and then a sudden wall. Essentially we aren't computing a steady increase as a risk, we are playing hot potato with a grenade. It's not a kind analogy, but once it spikes it will take an incredible amount of time (loss of blood?) in order for it to go down. edit: The two week lag in particular makes this task very difficult. That's why testing availability is important, otherwise it's impossible to judge the actual state of 'said grenade'. The worst alternative is not much better. A complete societal dissolution is a very bad result, much in the same way - it will increase in badness largely linearly, then suddenly collapse. I do think we have much more 'give' on stress -if- we are organized about it, but that doesn't mean 100% lockdown is the way forwards. In a lot of areas, such a thing hasn't existed since the start of this regardless. This is especially true given the political motivations in publishing bad data, where it seems weighted against reporting real numbers (which is common, as political 'cya' is much, much more common and extensive than the alternative) Unfortunately our organizational track record is terrible, so I have no faith on success on either front. edit: Not in providing support and organization to manage that stress, or in actual honest interest in managing and mitigating the pandemic.

I think that's a different sentiment/action from doling out punishment, however. And it's an example of 'between two extremes' perhaps