Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 393 posts

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#331

Post by tptacek »

reducesuffering wrote: post #330
tptacek wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liberals are invested in social theories that reject the importance of fathers in socializing boys? Are you sure you're not getting this stuff from Youtube, and kind of winding yourself up? Stable two-parent households, high education, and liberalism are all correlated.

I believe he’s grouping liberals with a more radical left wing, common by the right wing. What he’s referring to is the BLM website stating “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement” that it looks like they’ve since removed. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/28/ask-politifac...

Even that statement --- which few liberals are even aware of, let alone agree with --- is wildly misconstrued. It refers to the fact that Black families have historically lived in generational households with children raised by grandparents and aunts as well as parents, a model (1) common to several European ethnicities and (2) actively discriminated against in suburban America (explicitly, by zoning laws). It's not a declaration that fathers are useless.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#332

Post by spacemanmatt »

irisman wrote: post #217
spacemanmatt wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to get rich, and this is supported by evidence, is to have someone give you money. Usually it is one's parents. Just the facts.

Can you show these evidence

Inheritance is incredibly over-represented as a source of wealth, among the wealthy. Even those who "earned" it rarely come from a poor background. If you don't see this yourself, reach out to a professor of sociology for a frank chat.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#333

Post by Clubber »

whatshisface wrote: post #322
marcosdumay wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows? (Really, does anybody know?) If you decriminalize, you do make drugs more approachable. You also make treatments more approachable, and health research actually possible. Besides, there are other ways to fight the use of something than sending the police to lock people down with other addicts. And well, all that police involvement does put money on the drug sellers hands, to use on their marketing. Overall…

> Overall, it seems that the highest damage (by orders of magnitude) those substances cause is due to the police involvement. Most of the damage done to a cancer survivor was done by chemo, but that's not an argument against the treatment. The right level to stop at is where adding one more unit of police damage would stop less than one unit of drug damage but like you say nobody knows where that is.

We've had a 50 year case study on what harsh criminal penalties for drug use results in. End result? Sky-rocking drug use with increased potency, cheaper prices, and a skyrocketing prison population. I'm not sure you could find a worse outcome.

Not only did we worsen the problem we were trying to solve (drug use), but we created two new ones with increased potency of the drugs leading to more deaths, and booming prison population, the largest in the world. It boggles the mind that any rational person would think that to continue going down this path will lead to some sort of improvement. I suspect it's just poor justification for the institution to preserve themselves. Cops gotta have their pensions.

What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#334

Post by leetcrew »

lovich wrote: post #41
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not capitalism. That’s some kind of meritocratic (anti?-)utopia. Capitalism is when you can do with your property whatever you want including giving it away to whomever you want.

If you’re dead you don’t get to make decisions anymore. These sorts of arguments would have more weight if the parents actually transferred the wealth earlier than their death or shortly before it, but they want to retain all the power that comes with that capital and then pick the winners in the next round of the economy by bequeathing it to their children. If we want any sort of system even approaching a meritocrac…

if the "after death" silliness is your main concern here, that seems easy to satisfy with the abstraction of a will or trust that is set up before death.

personally I find it pretty reasonable that I get to decide who gets the lion's share of assets I have worked for my whole life. at the same time, it seems bad when enormous amounts of wealth are passed down over generations (and having known a couple people in this situation, it seems bad for them too). the question is, where do we strike the balance?

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#335

Post by Clubber »

long_time_gone wrote: post #289
jimbob21 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again: you can't get white activist gun owners to defend a licensed gun owner who was surprised and shot in his own home by police executing a no-knock warrant that wasn't for him. That's patently false at the very least. Everyone I've talked to said it was a horrible act and those officers deserve legal charges.

> Everyone I've talked to said it was a horrible act and those officers deserve legal charges. That's great for the people you talked to, the comment was about the NRA or any other gun rights group actually defending him. Did you friends protest for him? Did they write their congressperson? Did they raise legal funds at the gun range? If they didn't, then they aren't activists. What about Philando Castile? The NRA di…

Did you do any of those things, or are you just pointing fingers at people for not doing the same things you did't do?

Make no mistake, the government's job, first and foremost is to protect itself. This means state, local and federal. The only reason we're even seeing any resolution on this sort of thing is they see it as a systemic problem. "Defund the police," and some local government's willingness to put it to a vote put a lot of fear into police departments. Over time, they will revert back to their normal behavior, so it's something we have to be diligent about.

Yes, I wrote my mayor, city councilman, senators, the president and congressman. Nothing really happened until defund the police became nationalized and the state / local / federal governments were forced to act out of pure self interest and self preservation. Bad, murderous cops got away Scott free for decades before that.

One of the saddest parts is good people become police to actually do good for the community, then they are met with this sort of nastiness from their departments and bosses. It's gotta be a real gut punch.

Here's a recent example of a cop trying to pull a sergeant off of a perp. Sergeant was threatening to pepper spray a guy handcuffed in the back of a squad car. Other cop pulls on sergeant's belt to stop what he was doing. Sergeant freaks out and puts his hand around other cop's (female by the way) throat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUX25CO6hhE

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#336

Post by mardifoufs »

aliswe wrote: post #163
zarzavat wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Abu X is a kunya[0]. It could mean that your child’s name is X, or X could be something more abstract and figurative like a nickname. The “ou” spelling of و is French style and would usually indicate a French speaking country or an former French colony. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunya_(Arabic)

Tarek Abou-Khatwa, my guess on that name (i didnt even read the article, lol) is Morocco? wdyt?

"Abou" is a pretty rarely used prefix in moroccan names in my experience. We don't really use Abou or Ibn in moroccan arabic. It's usually "ould", "bou", "ben", and in general last names are rarely derived from filial/familial links. When they are, the "abou" prefix just get blended like gp said into for example, Boumedienne. It almost never remains separate.

Tribal affiliation is more important (though it is true that Abou-x can be a reference to a tribe instead of a particular family) so you get names like Al Alaoui, Al Idrissi, Al Zitouni etc. To me Abou-Khatwa has more of a levant/gulf sound to it.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#337

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #329
rayiner wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone says that “teachers are racist” and points to differing graduation rates of white and Black kids, do you take that assertion at face value? Or do you point out that the kids aren’t similarly situated. Obviously the latter. It doesn’t make sense to blame teachers for disparities that exist at more basic levels. So why don’t you apply the same logic to OP’s statement above? The data shows that there is no di…

Liberals are invested in social theories that reject the importance of fathers in socializing boys? Are you sure you're not getting this stuff from Youtube, and kind of winding yourself up? Stable two-parent households, high education, and liberalism are all correlated.

> Liberals are invested in social theories that reject the importance of fathers in socializing boys?

In academia, public policy, and political messaging, yes. With a few exceptions.

> Are you sure you're not getting this stuff from Youtube, and kind of winding yourself up?

I don’t watch YouTube. It doesn’t even really come up in right-wing media, because much of the Trump right is itself a product of the post-family values 1990s. It comes from my own observations of “stuff my liberal parents take as axiomatic that I can’t say among my friends with graduate degrees.”

> Stable two-parent households, high education, and liberalism are all correlated.

That’s true. You have lots of people who preach permissiveness and self fulfillment in public and practice rigid conformity in their own lives. Growing up I reconciled this as the way my parents did: “things it’s okay for Americans to do versus but not for us to do.” I find that suboptimal now.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#338

Post by at_a_remove »

jmyeet wrote: post #281
ght wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are going to bring into account how many African-Americans are being killed by police we need to also bring into account the FBI's violent crime statistics. Blacks made up 56% of known murder offenders. While European Whites were 28% of known murder offenders while making up 60-65% of the population. Remember, African-Americans are only 11% of the population. That is a huge discrepancy that needs to be brought…

I'm going to assume good intent here and say you've been sucked into some white supremacist propaganda. This falls under the umbrella of "1350" [1]: > The number 13 used in conjunction with either the number 52 or the number 90 is a shorthand reference to racist propaganda claims by white supremacists against African-Americans to depict them as savage and criminal in nature. If anything, it's evidence of overpolicing…

Don't forget 8, 14, and 88.

Soon, we shall fear all numbers as dogwhistles.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#339

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #331
reducesuffering wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he’s grouping liberals with a more radical left wing, common by the right wing. What he’s referring to is the BLM website stating “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement” that it looks like they’ve since removed. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/28/ask-politifac...

Even that statement --- which few liberals are even aware of, let alone agree with --- is wildly misconstrued. It refers to the fact that Black families have historically lived in generational households with children raised by grandparents and aunts as well as parents, a model (1) common to several European ethnicities and (2) actively discriminated against in suburban America (explicitly, by zoning laws). It's not…

I think it requires some gymnastics to conclude that the statement doesn’t refer specifically to inter generational families without a married mother and father present: https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wed...

I fully believe that these differences in family structure are the product of cultural and economic destruction caused by slavery, Jim Crow, etc. So what’s the solution? For decades it’s been more social liberalism: easier divorce, easier single parenthood, cultural changes to normalize unstable families. At the end of the day the bus that is the Democratic Party is driven by social liberals, and more individual freedom and less collective norm enforcement is the main solution they have in stock.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#340

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #331
reducesuffering wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he’s grouping liberals with a more radical left wing, common by the right wing. What he’s referring to is the BLM website stating “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement” that it looks like they’ve since removed. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/28/ask-politifac...

Even that statement --- which few liberals are even aware of, let alone agree with --- is wildly misconstrued. It refers to the fact that Black families have historically lived in generational households with children raised by grandparents and aunts as well as parents, a model (1) common to several European ethnicities and (2) actively discriminated against in suburban America (explicitly, by zoning laws). It's not…

I think it requires some gymnastics to conclude that the statement doesn’t refer specifically to inter generational families without a married mother and father present: https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wed...

I fully believe that these differences in family structure are the product of cultural and economic destruction caused by slavery, Jim Crow, etc. So what’s the solution? For decades it’s been more social liberalism: easier divorce, easier single parenthood, cultural changes to normalize unstable families. At the end of the day the bus that is the Democratic Party is driven by social liberals, and more individual freedom and less collective norm enforcement is their solution to everything.

Post reply on HN