Serious Police Brutality in the U.S.

Do you believe the U.S. has a problem with police brutality?

  • Yes, especially towards black men

    Votes: 187 53.3%
  • Yes, but not specifically biased against black men

    Votes: 101 28.8%
  • No

    Votes: 63 17.9%

  • Total voters
    351

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Ok you "think". That's not encouraging given the confident tone of your intensely patronizing post and response thereto... but let's see. This is the only recent TV post I can see. Is he saying/implying/alluding to what you charged him of saying?


No. he isn't. He's responding to this (below) post specifically. With a rhetorical device called sarcasm.



Which is planspeak translates into, "you cannot be naive enough to make it a case of a few bad apples, rather than systemic practices and biases which result in an uncomfortably high amount of police brutality, and that too v/s specifically protesters made up of minority groups".

What you still haven't shown me is the "stupid", "ignorant" comment which resembles: "it's perfectly ok for people to say that all police are bad people, and that they don't need to exist"

Your confident use of those strong adjectives is turning out to be quite ironic. Just take atomicllamas' advice. It's in good faith. Stop derailing the thread. And develop reading comprehension skills.
Oh, so it's sarcasm, and I didn't know it was sarcasm.
My problem.
Thanks for pointing out.

I mean I think I saw that sentence somewhere, but somehow it isn't on this page anymore.
 
I'd say it's undeniable America has a police brutality problem when you can have a video surface of officers shooting a mentally ill homeless man while he's turning away from them, before using non-lethal rounds and loosing an attack dog on him, and still have the officers involved get off on a 9-3 mistrial in favor of acquittal. Yeah, I'm still furious over the James Boyd case.

I can't say whether or not it's primarily a racial issue. Race and racism are certainly factors in many areas but systematic racism is a whole new can of worms that I'm not prepared to open yet. Statistics showing that black people are over-represented in police shooting incidents only proves that there is a problem, it doesn't prove what that problem is or where it stems from, although I would definitely agree that all possibilities need to be investigated. The thing is, how to you objectively prove the police system is racist? Furthermore, if it is, how do you fix it? And please don't give me any "listen and believe" nonsense, I'm interested in solutions that actually work, not shit you pulled out of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The investigation process into a police shooting to determine whether or not it was justified and whether or not charges should be brought against the officer needs to be more transparent. Evidence found in these investigations needs to be made available to the public immediately. Ideally some sort of unbiased third party should be the ones conducting the investigation, but it would be hard to establish a unbiased institute with enough resources to handle these kinds of cases.

Also, in the event that an officer of the law is actually found guilty of murder, it should result in an immediate death penalty. I'm against the death penalty in most cases (although maybe not as much as other liberals), but if you're going to have the power to take the lives of citizens in order to defend the public, misuse of that power should result in yours being taken from you.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://medium.com/@lorinixon/i-was-attacked-at-an-anti-trump-demonstration-5cac17cc0e62#.rc2ag4pv7

"I am not the only person who was brutalized by the cops that night, or any night. The list of victims is literally endless, and we must acknowledge that people of color (particularly trans women of color) face police violence at much higher rates than any other group of people. A common thread in all these instances of police brutality is the lack of justice. There will never be justice for MOST of the human rights violations committed by law enforcement in America. Not only will there never be justice, these types of attacks are condoned at all levels of our government. The conversion to a militarized police state will quickly progress with the appointment of proud white nationalists into the next administration.

The State uses their brute force, their lethal and non-lethal weapons, and their psychological warfare against our bodies regardless if we are peaceful. They spread propaganda that violating our bodies and defending the corporate elite is an acceptable way to make a living. We have a duty to combat these actions in everyway possible — Starting with our interpersonal conversations."
 
Exactly! If there were just a few less bad cops then we wouldn't have the entire police force attacking protesters with firehoses and concussion grenades!

Christ almighty.
Which is planspeak translates into, "you cannot be naive enough to make it a case of a few bad apples, rather than systemic practices and biases which result in an uncomfortably high amount of police brutality, and that too v/s specifically protesters made up of minority groups".
Of course it's a case of a few bad apples! Your problem here is that the bad apples are in charge, and are good enough at spinning what their doing to look nice for the politicians.

I'm not going to say *no one* goes into the police force with the attitude of "yeah, I'm picking this as my career because I can use it to abuse black people and protesters!", but the number isn't going to be significant. That kind of shit is trained into normal people by the idiots charge of certain police forces.

I can't even say 'the police' in general, because these issues vary wildly by jurisdiction. In areas with good training, you end up with a lot of good cops and not a whole lot of shitty cops. In areas with shitty training, you end up with a lot of shitty cops, which leads to the cases of brutality and racism and all the other shit that's been mentioned in this thread.

Last thing about the apples metaphor - it missed the point of my post. It implies that the apples that aren't bad are good, and the whole point of what I was saying was to emphasise that the apples are exceedingly human; ie a mixed bag.

Feel like I'm not articulating my thoughts very well. Oh well.
 
I think most police brutality is ignored in favor of a high profile case that is exaggerated through misunderstanding in the promotion of the idea that police officers specifically hunt and shoot black people for, being black?

You have George Zimmerman who went from a hispanic democrat that voted for obama...well I'm not sure what he's doing now really. Not to mention the amount of times he was lightened up to appear lighter. You'd think that there was a conscious effort to lie about a single person to accrue viewers for you news network.

A lie repeated a thousand times winds up turning into truth eventually.
 

Shrug

is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Championis a Past SCL Champion
LCPL Champion
walter scott's murderer had his case end in a mistrial because these dudes couldnt find him guilty. thats like a macabre joke (if u havent seen the video and want to die, go ahead and find it). like i get the smogcon position is: 1) cops are great and i fucking love cops 2) cops should have tons of authority to do with which nearly whatever they chose (which is often haranguing black people for, like, existing but y'know, whatevers necessary) 3) if a cop feels a modicum of fear or senses the slightest bit of danger theyre supposed to shoot to kill without thinking / mercy and 4) if there is ever a factual, situational, emotional or any other dispute, the only correct response is to believe the cop unequivocally. i struggle to apply that paradigm to defend some cops in normal circumstances, but here i just cannot do it. can someone explain this one to me. what is the dispute. why cant the jury decide. why cant they. please help
 
walter scott's murderer had his case end in a mistrial because these dudes couldnt find him guilty. thats like a macabre joke (if u havent seen the video and want to die, go ahead and find it). like i get the smogcon position is: 1) cops are great and i fucking love cops 2) cops should have tons of authority to do with which nearly whatever they chose (which is often haranguing black people for, like, existing but y'know, whatevers necessary) 3) if a cop feels a modicum of fear or senses the slightest bit of danger theyre supposed to shoot to kill without thinking / mercy and 4) if there is ever a factual, situational, emotional or any other dispute, the only correct response is to believe the cop unequivocally. i struggle to apply that paradigm to defend some cops in normal circumstances, but here i just cannot do it. can someone explain this one to me. what is the dispute. why cant the jury decide. why cant they. please help
The trial was a mistrial because the jury could not reach a definitive verdict. Supposedly, one juror out of the twelve refused to vote on a guilty verdict. Perhaps this juror had a verdict before the trial began. Perhaps this juror still has the notion that all police are good and should not be punished. Perhaps, (however unlikely this may be), the one juror was the one black person on the jury, there is no way to tell. The reason why this was a mistrial was to allow what was seeming to be a guilty verdict be retried with a different verdict, instead of a non guilty verdict.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
I really hope that article was sarcastic - if not that is one of the dumbest things I've ever read
hah, apparently you didn't see earlier in the thread, I've already responded to similar attempts by others to project their willfully ignorant world view as a universal principle of criticism:
your mom is sarcastic

like why do you think you know anything about it? Not like you offer a response.
since you offer literally absolutely nothing other than, 'im not gonna take you seriously' as a response, here is some shit that if you read you may be less ignorant:

http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=369:white02a2&catid=66&Itemid=237

also the long version which includes specific case histories, already posted itt:

https://sph.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/Harris_Whiteness as Property_106HarvLRev-1.pdf
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
The trial was a mistrial because the jury could not reach a definitive verdict. Supposedly, one juror out of the twelve refused to vote on a guilty verdict. Perhaps this juror had a verdict before the trial began. Perhaps this juror still has the notion that all police are good and should not be punished. Perhaps, (however unlikely this may be), the one juror was the one black person on the jury, there is no way to tell. The reason why this was a mistrial was to allow what was seeming to be a guilty verdict be retried with a different verdict, instead of a non guilty verdict.
http://www.today.com/news/walter-sc...eman-explains-how-michael-slager-case-t105742 actually a news site that doesn't self-link stories every other sentence. Pretty nice explanation actually. So looks like under SC law murder must be premeditated, so manslaughter is the highest this can go from the start. It's worth noting the deadlocked juror was a former cop.

Shrug
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
"I tripped and just you know as I was falling I raised my arms for balance sighted my weapon stared at a fleeing man's back and pulled the trigger multiple times. Just entirely a freak accident I didn't intend to apply lethal force on a fleeing man without any cause."

Also how did the prosecution let a former cop into the jury pool?
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Okay simple thing since, not sure it got mentioned in this thread yet, a basic example of white supremacy in the U.S legal system:

the electoral college, an undemocratic institution left over from a constitutional bargain between industrialists and slave holders. Also 'states rights' are all about states' rights to allow slavery.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...45c526-1f85-11e2-afca-58c2f5789c5d_story.html


"1. The framers created the electoral college to protect small states.

The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had a variety of reasons for settling on the electoral college format, but protecting smaller states was not among them. Some delegates feared direct democracy, but that was only one factor in the debate.

Remember what the country looked like in 1787: The important division was between states that relied on slavery and those that didn’t, not between large and small states. A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.

The electoral college distorts the political process by providing a huge incentive to visit competitive states, especially large ones with hefty numbers of electoral votes."

i.e, the electoral college favors large states. the senate protects small states, not the electoral college.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
calling every police officer a pig really proves right wingers' point when they say you hate cops lol

Also replying to this
"Also 'states rights' are all about states' rights to allow slavery."
Please, when California does left leaning thing during the Trump Presidency and you cheer them on, I will dredge up this beautiful quote of yours to prove your hypocrisy.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
There's a difference between a healthy federal structure and condoning slavery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Oh no! Right wingers are right! People hate cops! It can't be that this disdain is borne from the cops being horridly violent state sanctioned gangs sent in to harass poor minority communities. Now that we've shown our true emotions nothing we say can ever be taken seriously again! All our rhetoric is for nothing! DAMN YOU EMOTIONS WHY MUST YOU KEEP ACTING UP IN RESPONSE TO MORALLY REPUGNANT THINGS!

Ps cops are pigs.

Also I'm struggling to remember the last significantly progressive thing California led the way on. The last 'progressive' stance the nation took was for gay marriage and California in fact banned that after smearing gay people as a horrid cult that would indoctrinate children.
 
i was going to reply to a GotR post directed at me following my condemnation of non-violence as inherently 'better' but i can't seem to find it. so i'll flesh out my thoughts here.

before i delve into why i feel as though violence shouldn't be wafted away in progressive movements, i think it's important to establish what protests are meant to achieve. they are mechanisms of effecting change and disrupting the state--ways of mobilising folx en masse in order to achieve a goal. in the face of patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism et al., protests like worker strikes and sit-ins have been integral for the betterment of labor. although individual workers in our society lack the means of self-liberation, gatherings allow for a much more pronounced statement in the battle against oppressors.

it's also important to establish that my acknowledgment of violence as a useful and sometimes necessary mechanism of change doesn't mean that i am pro-violence. often, discussions of nonviolence are unproductive because champions of 'safety' and 'non-harmful methods' create a false dichotomy of non-violence vs violence. to address us as solely violent actors is a misconception. instead, i believe that progressive actors should consider every tool in their toolbox and determine the best method of action. sometimes, this might be violence. often it is not. doing away with historically effective methods of protest under an arbitrary moral guise is a misguided action.

nonviolence is doing the work of the state for the state. pacifists pushing for nonviolent methods in the face of an unsympathetic bureaucracy allows for the state to establish dominion of violence. the state wishes for a nonviolent opposition--they're far easier to ignore and have far weaker of a chokehold. feel free to march around washington exclaiming transphobic, white feministy 'pussies fight back' mantras, but how will this coalition effectively curtail the heinous policies the state wishes to enact? what are the effects of your march? therein lies the problem: nonviolent coalitions are often historically far less effective.

now you may just falsely cling onto gandhi, martin luther king jr., et al. with your whitewashed history and wish to prove me wrong. your knowledge of history, however, is from the mouth of the coloniser. the history taught in our public education system is from a patriotic, winner's perspective. look no further than the accounts of american imperialism and east-asian hegemony being obfuscated under the guise of a 'bad guy' or 'democracy' in order to understand the very framing that you've been taught. to promote martin luther king as the messiah of the civil rights movement is to ignore the black panthers party that helped espouse national movements and allow him to gain a foothold. to espouse mlk's tactics as superior is to ignore the power that black revolutionaries and resistors afforded him.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

"In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King Jr.‘s Birmingham campaign was looking like it would be a repeat of the dismally failed action in Albany, Georgia (where a 9 month civil disobedience campaign in 1961 demonstrated the powerlessness of nonviolent protesters against a government with seemingly bottomless jails, and where, on July 24, 1962, rioting youth took over whole blocks for a night and forced the police to retreat from the ghetto, demonstrating that a year after the nonviolent campaign, black people in Albany still struggled against racism, but they had lost their preference for nonviolence). Then, on May 7 in Birmingham, after continued police violence, three thousand black people began fighting back, pelting the police with rocks and bottles. Just two days later, Birmingham — up until then an inflexible bastion of segregation — agreed to desegregate downtown stores, and President Kennedy backed the agreement with federal guarantees. The next day, after local white supremacists bombed a black home and a black business, thousands of black people rioted again, seizing a 9 block area, destroying police cars, injuring several cops (including the chief inspector), and burning white businesses. A month and a day later, President Kennedy was calling for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act, ending several years of a strategy to stall the civil rights movement. Perhaps the largest of the limited, if not hollow, victories of the civil rights movement came when black people demonstrated they would not remain peaceful forever. Faced with the two alternatives, the white power structure chose to negotiate with the pacifists, and we have seen the results."

being a pacifist also comes from a place of privilege. guess what loves, violence is already here. the state has already worked against radical movements through methods including but not limited to: assassinations, provocateurs, black-jacketing, etc. the cointelpro program, which is still alive and well today, worked towards silencing and 'neutralising' folx who were pushing against the state. not only that, but racist, patriarchal [et al.] structural violence through policies like the war on drugs, police violence, redlining of houses, the school to prison pipeline, etc. are already forming violence. they are tools of the state systematically crafted in order to create capital. there is a direct link between extraction of capital and societal oppression.

it is privilege which blinds you to these structures as you're not affected by them. it is privilege which says that the white pacifism pushing towards black liberation is enough to stop the imprisonment and slave labor that is happening. it is privilege which allows white people to gain social and economic capital from supporting black movements yet not actually supporting black people. it is privilege to write heartfelt letters to your senators while many folks affected by us imperialism are fighting for their lives. it is privilege to erase history and rewrite it in your own nonviolent pacifistic guise. it is privilege to have a patronising, patriarchal stance against those who commit acts of violence because their oppression is part and parcel to their livelihood. it is privilege to say that other issues are more important--that our own forced migration of native americans and now elimination of their water sources isn't of concern.

sometimes you just have to fight back. resist with purpose.
 
i was going to reply to a GotR post directed at me following my condemnation of non-violence as inherently 'better' but i can't seem to find it. so i'll flesh out my thoughts here.

before i delve into why i feel as though violence shouldn't be wafted away in progressive movements, i think it's important to establish what protests are meant to achieve. they are mechanisms of effecting change and disrupting the state--ways of mobilising folx en masse in order to achieve a goal. in the face of patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism et al., protests like worker strikes and sit-ins have been integral for the betterment of labor. although individual workers in our society lack the means of self-liberation, gatherings allow for a much more pronounced statement in the battle against oppressors.

it's also important to establish that my acknowledgment of violence as a useful and sometimes necessary mechanism of change doesn't mean that i am pro-violence. often, discussions of nonviolence are unproductive because champions of 'safety' and 'non-harmful methods' create a false dichotomy of non-violence vs violence. to address us as solely violent actors is a misconception. instead, i believe that progressive actors should consider every tool in their toolbox and determine the best method of action. sometimes, this might be violence. often it is not. doing away with historically effective methods of protest under an arbitrary moral guise is a misguided action.

nonviolence is doing the work of the state for the state. pacifists pushing for nonviolent methods in the face of an unsympathetic bureaucracy allows for the state to establish dominion of violence. the state wishes for a nonviolent opposition--they're far easier to ignore and have far weaker of a chokehold. feel free to march around washington exclaiming transphobic, white feministy 'pussies fight back' mantras, but how will this coalition effectively curtail the heinous policies the state wishes to enact? what are the effects of your march? therein lies the problem: nonviolent coalitions are often historically far less effective.

now you may just falsely cling onto gandhi, martin luther king jr., et al. with your whitewashed history and wish to prove me wrong. your knowledge of history, however, is from the mouth of the coloniser. the history taught in our public education system is from a patriotic, winner's perspective. look no further than the accounts of american imperialism and east-asian hegemony being obfuscated under the guise of a 'bad guy' or 'democracy' in order to understand the very framing that you've been taught. to promote martin luther king as the messiah of the civil rights movement is to ignore the black panthers party that helped espouse national movements and allow him to gain a foothold. to espouse mlk's tactics as superior is to ignore the power that black revolutionaries and resistors afforded him.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

"In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King Jr.‘s Birmingham campaign was looking like it would be a repeat of the dismally failed action in Albany, Georgia (where a 9 month civil disobedience campaign in 1961 demonstrated the powerlessness of nonviolent protesters against a government with seemingly bottomless jails, and where, on July 24, 1962, rioting youth took over whole blocks for a night and forced the police to retreat from the ghetto, demonstrating that a year after the nonviolent campaign, black people in Albany still struggled against racism, but they had lost their preference for nonviolence). Then, on May 7 in Birmingham, after continued police violence, three thousand black people began fighting back, pelting the police with rocks and bottles. Just two days later, Birmingham — up until then an inflexible bastion of segregation — agreed to desegregate downtown stores, and President Kennedy backed the agreement with federal guarantees. The next day, after local white supremacists bombed a black home and a black business, thousands of black people rioted again, seizing a 9 block area, destroying police cars, injuring several cops (including the chief inspector), and burning white businesses. A month and a day later, President Kennedy was calling for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act, ending several years of a strategy to stall the civil rights movement. Perhaps the largest of the limited, if not hollow, victories of the civil rights movement came when black people demonstrated they would not remain peaceful forever. Faced with the two alternatives, the white power structure chose to negotiate with the pacifists, and we have seen the results."

being a pacifist also comes from a place of privilege. guess what loves, violence is already here. the state has already worked against radical movements through methods including but not limited to: assassinations, provocateurs, black-jacketing, etc. the cointelpro program, which is still alive and well today, worked towards silencing and 'neutralising' folx who were pushing against the state. not only that, but racist, patriarchal [et al.] structural violence through policies like the war on drugs, police violence, redlining of houses, the school to prison pipeline, etc. are already forming violence. they are tools of the state systematically crafted in order to create capital. there is a direct link between extraction of capital and societal oppression.

it is privilege which blinds you to these structures as you're not affected by them. it is privilege which says that the white pacifism pushing towards black liberation is enough to stop the imprisonment and slave labor that is happening. it is privilege which allows white people to gain social and economic capital from supporting black movements yet not actually supporting black people. it is privilege to write heartfelt letters to your senators while many folks affected by us imperialism are fighting for their lives. it is privilege to erase history and rewrite it in your own nonviolent pacifistic guise. it is privilege to have a patronising, patriarchal stance against those who commit acts of violence because their oppression is part and parcel to their livelihood. it is privilege to say that other issues are more important--that our own forced migration of native americans and now elimination of their water sources isn't of concern.

sometimes you just have to fight back. resist with purpose.
I believe that post was in a different thread ('Free Speech, let's do this properly', maybe), and in response to Myzozoa - no idea what your opening line is about.

You've also mischaracterised my argument. I was basically just trying to point out that 'violent protest' is, as the word is currently used, an oxymoron. For the direct example, which was something along the lines of 'smashing windows and setting things on fire', 'riot' is a much more accurate term. Perhaps 'uprising' or 'revolution' would fit what you're describing better.

My opinion is that riots accomplish nothing aside from making it look like the people advocating your cause tend towards senseless violence, which actually hurts you in terms of accomplishing anything. I can see how a violent revolution/uprising would be necessary in certain contexts, but by no means do I believe that kind of social unrest is currently necessary.

tl;dr the point of my original post was meant to be that - in our current society - violence hinders a cause more than helping it and is totally unnecessary. That's different than arguing that violence is never necessary.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
I stopped reading after it became clear that you think that it's okay for people to hold hostage their support of treating people with dignity because they don't like it when communities who are constantly under attack by the structure of society lash out.

Black people get murdered by the government --> black communities express pain and rage --> liberals turn to the black communities and say "You know maybe we'd find it easier to support you if you weren't so violent." Ignoring the literal dead bodies in the streets.

K.
 
language is a source of power and struggle--employing the term riot (a term that has been adopted by the right to delegitimise acts of defiance against the state), especially in the mass media, is an attempt to neuter the efficacy of said defiance. keep in mind that this term is coded among racial lines as well.

"Pacifists would also do well to examine the color of violence. When we mention riots, whom do we envision? White activists committing property destruction as a form of civil disobedience may stretch, but do not usually lose, the protective covering of “nonviolence.” People of color engaged in politically motivated property destruction, unless strictly within the rubric of a white activist-organized protest, are banished to the realm of violence, denied consideration as activists, not portrayed as conscientious."

if you believe that any forme of violence is unnecessary in a modern context, i question your consciousness wrt many of the issues that folks are dissenting against. we have more slaves alive today than ever before in history through the state propagating the necessity of prison. this industry, tying state criminalisation to privatised prisons and neoliberal capitalism, reveals one of the many flaws in our current system.

primitive accumulation has never been addressed by capitalism, and the myth of meritocracy promotes neutrality against the state in many marginalised communities. while studying this primitive accumulation, we find the roots for many other imbalances present in oppressed groups today, primarily in people of color, through the redlining of houses, the disparities in prison sentences and arrest rates for petty crimes, etc. this accumulation describes the usurpation of native american land for resources, water, etc. it also describes the usurpation of colored bodies for free labor and sex. chattel slavery allowed for possessors to overtake bodies for sex and then enslave the children for more capital. the interconnection of state legislation and capitalism is present yet again.

much how feudalism, the predecessor of capitalism, promoted neutrality through the myth of divine right, we find this very same kool-aid fettering progress in the communities today. in turn, this allows for a simpler extraction of labor for capitalists. as i mentioned previously, societal oppression is part and parcel to the extraction of labor. this is to say that capitalists have historically subjugated folx in order to more easily extract labor (and therefore capital). how do we reconcile 'equality' with this system of oppression which has never been adequately confronted?

there are myriad other issues that radical actors push against, many of which have been discussed in previous cong threads--i just gave an example i hadn't seen given; folx like myzozoa have outlined many more modern examples of discrimination and work needed to be done. the civil rights movement inadequately amended even de jure discrimination, let alone de facto discrimination. ignoring this discrimination shows a willful ignorance of modern movements and a deficient understanding of history.
 
Last edited:
I stopped reading after it became clear that you think that it's okay for people to hold hostage their support of treating people with dignity because they don't like it when communities who are constantly under attack by the structure of society lash out.

Black people get murdered by the government --> black communities express pain and rage --> liberals turn to the black communities and say "You know maybe we'd find it easier to support you if you weren't so violent." Ignoring the literal dead bodies in the streets.

K.
Police and government are two different entities, don't try to make it sound like there's some kind of government conspiracy to murder specific ethnic minorities. The vast majority of cases are individual cops making bad decisions. Also, in this case I don't support cops that shoot innocent people OR people who get pissed off at the cops and throw violent temper tantrums that destroy the property of innocent bystanders. There's no dichotomy here, I don't have to be in one camp or the other - in this hypothetical situation, both parties are in the wrong. Responding to prejudice in this way only damages the cause.
language is a source of power and struggle--employing the term riot (a term that has been adopted by the right to delegitimise acts of defiance against the state), especially in the mass media, is an attempt to neuter the efficacy of said defiance. keep in mind that this term is coded among racial lines as well.

"Pacifists would also do well to examine the color of violence. When we mention riots, whom do we envision? White activists committing property destruction as a form of civil disobedience may stretch, but do not usually lose, the protective covering of “nonviolence.” People of color engaged in politically motivated property destruction, unless strictly within the rubric of a white activist-organized protest, are banished to the realm of violence, denied consideration as activists, not portrayed as conscientious."

if you believe that any forme of violence is unnecessary in a modern context, i question your consciousness wrt many of the issues that folks are dissenting against. we have more slaves alive today than ever before in history through the state propagating the necessity of prison. this industry, tying state criminalisation to privatised prisons and neoliberal capitalism, reveals one of the many flaws in our current system.

primitive accumulation has never been addressed by capitalism, and the myth of meritocracy promotes neutrality against the state in many marginalised communities. while studying this primitive accumulation, we find the roots for many other imbalances present in oppressed groups today, primarily in people of color, through the redlining of houses, the disparities in prison sentences and arrest rates for petty crimes, etc. this accumulation describes the usurpation of native american land for resources, water, etc. it also describes the usurpation of colored bodies for free labor and sex. chattel slavery allowed for possessors to overtake bodies for sex and then enslave the children for more capital. the interconnection of state legislation and capitalism is present yet again.

much how feudalism, the predecessor of capitalism, promoted neutrality through the myth of divine right, we find this very same kool-aid fettering progress in the communities today. in turn, this allows for a simpler extraction of labor for capitalists. as i mentioned previously, societal oppression is part and parcel to the extraction of labor. this is to say that capitalists have historically subjugated folx in order to more easily extract labor (and therefore capital). how do we reconcile 'equality' with this system of oppression which has never been adequately confronted?

there are myriad other issues that radical actors push against, many of which have been discussed in previous cong threads--i just gave an example i hadn't seen given; folx like myzozoa have outlined many more modern examples of discrimination and work needed to be done. the civil rights movement inadequately amended even de jure discrimination, let alone de facto discrimination. ignoring this discrimination shows a willful ignorance of modern movements and a deficient understanding of history.
Dude, stay on topic. This is a thread about police brutality, not about how capitalists make slaves out of the lower classes and/or ethnic minorities. As for your comment and quote about the word riot:

upload_2017-3-9_11-52-29.png


See how this definition doesn't say 'but only when black people do it'? The 'white activists committing property destruction' aren't non-violent, and are rioting. It's also not possible for me to investigate the quote further because you didn't actually say where it came from. I guess you just forgot? How convenient.

So once again, tl;dr - Is there a problem? Yes. Is the solution to destroy everything in sight? Hell no.
 
if u need me to explain the difference between connotative and denotative meaning and the effects language has on folx through framing, internalisation, and biases [good to read up on frank luntz, noam chomsky, effects like stereotype threats] i will gladly accept $$$ and give u a foundation. i said language was a source of power & struggle very intentionally.

the quote of my post is from the same source from my last post, and the entirety of my post was explaining why this quote of yours was dangerously inaccurate

My opinion is that riots accomplish nothing aside from making it look like the people advocating your cause tend towards senseless violence, which actually hurts you in terms of accomplishing anything. I can see how a violent revolution/uprising would be necessary in certain contexts, but by no means do I believe that kind of social unrest is currently necessary.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top