151–160 of 430 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not use violence in a democratic protest. To use it is effective acknowledgement that you either want to destroy the democracy or do not believe that it actually exists on the moment.
>do not believe that it actually exists on the moment Precisely. People have been voting and non-violently protesting for decades, and it hasn't worked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> police kill members of their community at random. I understand your emotion, but saying that the police walks in the street killing random black people is also unproductive. You can imagine folks on the right showcasing your post as an example of the "loony left", then starting a discussion about the fact that more whites are killed by police, and so on. Each time that happens, you lose a tiny bit of support, and t…
no, trying to dismiss the point as emotion or leaning on name-calling are non-sequiturs. people are mad, rightfully so, and being good little citizens doesn't change anything. you demonstrate my exact point: obama cares about elections and the slow, meandering civil process. he's insulated from the consequences of having that position, unlike the people on the streets.
I think we rarely can choose between perfect and imperfect; we have to choose between two imperfects.
Both on the left and on the right, many people have to hold their nose and vote for the person they despise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not use violence in a democratic protest. To use it is effective acknowledgement that you either want to destroy the democracy or do not believe that it actually exists on the moment.
The American revolution was a violent protest.
We have a democracy. People have opportunities to vote. Police policy is decided largely at the local level, so individual votes are powerful. Imagine if even 10% of protesters voted in their local elections...
> "So the bottom line is this: if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both . We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform." obama spends the first 7 paragraphs explaining the ideals of government and the vulgarity of violence, and somehow ends up on thi…
> police kill members of their community at random. I understand your emotion, but saying that the police walks in the street killing random black people is also unproductive. You can imagine folks on the right showcasing your post as an example of the "loony left", then starting a discussion about the fact that more whites are killed by police, and so on. Each time that happens, you lose a tiny bit of support, and t…
It's unfortunately true though. We have seen countless examples in the last few years alone where the victim was murdered by a cop. And those are only the ones that were recorded and managed to go viral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would agree with you except basically everyone was on the same side as soon as the video was released. Everyone, right, left, and center agreed there was a serious problem. So what are we raising awareness about?
I don't think everyone knew that everyone agreed that there was a serious problem. The media were really boosting the usual divisive narrative, but I won't speculate here as to why.
(paraphrased from Michael Malice)
Worth reading to familiarize oneself with leftist views on institution of Policing. Likely some eye-opening viewpoints for most.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no, trying to dismiss the point as emotion or leaning on name-calling are non-sequiturs. people are mad, rightfully so, and being good little citizens doesn't change anything. you demonstrate my exact point: obama cares about elections and the slow, meandering civil process. he's insulated from the consequences of having that position, unlike the people on the streets.
Perhaps some of your criticism is valid, but would you rather have Obama or Trump? I think we rarely can choose between perfect and imperfect; we have to choose between two imperfects. Both on the left and on the right, many people have to hold their nose and vote for the person they despise.
What are some actual laws we can pass from this situation? I was thinking at the very least to get a citizen right where you can request to have any encounter with the police recorded. ‘Officer I request my right to have this encounter recorded’.
2. Limit the use of force
3. Independently investigate and prosecute
4. Community representation
5. Body cams / film the police
6. Training in de-escalation
7. End for profit policing
8. Demilitarization of the police force
9. Fair police union contracts that remove provisions within police bill of rights that impose barriers to accountability
Look here:
Https://bit.ly/3cosVXM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if things would be better if there was some mandatory thing like jury duty where you had to go meet and hang out for an hour with a different randomly picked person every a month at some center where they'd have something for you to do so it's not 100% awkward. I realize that's a terrible idea, but not sure of any way of changing people's attitudes towards each other when they'd rather stick to their little…
I tend to think people's attitudes come from too much diversity rather than too little. The most diverse places I've ever been are also the most visibly segregated and racially aware (but not in a good way). Meanwhile, I see the most tolerance for others in homogeneous places. I wonder if this is borne out in any studies.
"I’ve heard some suggest that the recurrent problem of racial bias in our criminal justice system proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time. I couldn’t disagree more. The point of protest is to raise public awareness... But eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices —…
Especially when races can be so close and you have to wait up to 6 years to vote someone out. 6 years is a much different time frame politically today than it was in the 18th century. A term that long doesn't shield senators from political pressure, but it allows lobbyists to get more bang for their buck and further the power imbalance between rich and the rest of us.