Live data from Hacker News

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

reason.com

341–350 of 393 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police exist to protect the property of the wealthy. Of course they have more power than people who make similar money. They have been granted that power by much wealthier, more powerful people. And it is conditional on fulfilling their role.

So, you don't believe that money is the same as power, like you stated up there.

What?

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

#342

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.

> 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…

>> 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.

Are you the product of an immigrant family? Because it sounds quite like something many immigrant parents would say.

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

#343

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.

> 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…

This just isn't persuasive. You can find support for any wacky idea "in academia", at any end of the political spectrum --- I don't go around saying that conservatives are deeply invested in the idea of a Catholic Integralist theocracy, and so I object to the idea that you get to drag out someone's Masters in Tumblr Theory graduate thesis to win arguments. Meanwhile: in public policy? In political messaging? Support your claim with evidence, and serious evidence, lest I see whatever BLM thing you come up with and raise you Lauren Boebert.

I suspect that what's happening here is that you've mistaken the notion that people have itchy trigger fingers about people trash-talking single moms (they do) with the idea that people widely believe "single mom" is an optimal child rearing arrangement (they do not). I live in the People's Republic of Oak Park, and you'd be run out on a rail from the Oak Park Progressives group for writing a post about how dads are overrated.

Just for the sake of clarity, and to keep the discussion on the tracks, I'm dialing up my rhetoric: I think these beliefs you have about "liberals" are the outcome of Internet poisoning, not a reflection of reality.

Again: the best proxy we have for measuring social liberalism is educational attainment. People with college degress --- I'm not valorizing them, I didn't go, I think college is an overrated luxury good --- are much more likely to have stable single-parent homes that people without; to the extent that this "nuclear family" gap exists, it's "conservative" voters who are likely to be on the single-parent end of it.

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

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The statement refers to the fact that discrimination against inter-generational families were a proxy for discrimination against Black, Latino, and, before that, Italian households in the American suburbs. Which is a real thing that did --- and still does --- happen.

And you've skated right past the more important part of my argument, which is that nobody with a BLM sign on their lawn even knows about this "nuclear family" thing. You'd have to go dig it up for them.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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?

I protested, donated, wrote letters to voters, and contacted a local politician.

But that isn't relevant to the original comment, which was a person claiming that "everyone I talked to said it was horrible" is equivalent to gun rights activism.

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

#346
post #139

Fought Experiment: Lets say law enforcement was given the task to examine the affairs of 100, randomly selected, poor/medium income households and 100, randomly selected, very wealthy households. Statistically, where would they find the most amount of criminal activity? Has any similar research been done, and would you care to share the data?

Should be "Thought Experiment"...can't edit. Bloody mobile auto-complete...

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

#347
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, you are naive. I guess they may as well execute them on the spot too. Judge and jury and the fifth amendment be damned.

Or comment has a missing /s

Yeah, I forgot I was on HN. I keep forgetting how many people here have extreme difficulty detecting subtle sarcasm. Even a casual perusal of my comments would have uncovered that I have a, probably unhealthy, distrust of most things government.

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? I protested, donated, wrote letters to voters, and contacted a local politician. But that isn't relevant to the original comment, which was a person claiming that "everyone I talked to said it was horrible" is equivalent to gun rights activism.

So let me break down how I read it. This is what the person was replying to, he quoted it so will I:

> 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.

Which is first, an absolute, and absolutes are rarely true. Second, you said defend. "...you can't get white activist gun owners to defend a licensed gun owner..." Defining a police shooting as a bad shooting (illegal) is defending the victim of the shooting. To defend the police and not the victim would be to justify it the shooting as a good shooting (valid/legal). Based on what he said, he points to everyone he knows defended the victim claiming it was a bad shooting, therefore, everyone he knew defended the victim and not the police.

It sounds like you might want to slow down a bit and give people the benefit of the doubt, maybe take the time to read and understand what people write. I have the same affliction myself sometimes.

Post reply on HN