341–350 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.
> democratic protest It seems like the protestors have lost faith in the democratic process. Can you still call it a democratic protest?
I agree with almost everything Mr. Obama wrote. But... I feel the complete opposite of “hopeful” when I see these riots, when I see people so angry they will destroy their own cities. Because it accomplishes the exact opposite of they hope it will accomplish: 1. Those who side with heavy-handed police tactics feel vindicated for their prejudices. 2. The communities of those who feel unheard and left out are torn down…
> Just using common sense tells me that if you can name off the victims it means the problem isn’t widespread or systemic across the country. true, but the counterpoint is the problem is not the volume of errors, its how the errors are handled. people know those names because the issues were never closed. Public servants like police officers should be open kimono; if someone dies, it should be a big deal. where's the…
I did however never fear ending up on death row.
"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 —…
I can't find the numbers right now, maybe someone else has them, but if I remember correctly, 2 examples - interracial marriage in late 1960s and same-sex marriage in 2010s - show that support for these kind of relationships grew much faster after they were made legal in all states in US. So I partially agree with you - there must be a certain culture change happening, but it can and it should be supported by law in…
According to Pew, gay marriage was supported by more people than opposed it in 2010, a full five years before legalization.
Not even leaders for the liberal party, like Obama and Hillary Clinton supported it until a few years later.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, pretty much everyone was on the same page about that. What was incredibly and predictably divisive is burning down cities as a response to it, and naturally the American media have been spending a lot of effort fanning those flames.
The worst part is not going to be the brutality that is coming when police/military put a stop to this. That will be horrific, but temporary. Six months from now, is the average white American small business owner going to be more or less likely to hire a black person? That's the fucked up shit that is going to last another decade. That's the stuff that maintains generational poverty. And there's a thousand other sub…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. The non-violent protests of Colin Kaepernick were mocked and used to rally the other side and just weren't effective. The problem here is not the violence, but a policing system that is…
>The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard". Trotted out by ignorant woke dummies. In his 1967 Stanford speech MLK also says: "Let me say as I've always said and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and…
"They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone has pretty much universally agreed that what the officers did was unacceptable. Even other Police. The officer was arrested, why things didn't move sooner was a local matter to take up with that mayor and that department. It should have been handled locally, not all departments are the same. But you end up in a situation of further tragedy where people start destroying property and assaulting others, and the…
Noise and chaos gets heard. You know what gets completely ignored in this country? Peaceful protest. The actions of the last week are far, far more likely to result in change than any mass protest. Just look at the anti-Iraq war protests - the largest protests in US history held in dozens of cities over months and accomplished precisely nothing at all. Civil rights, gay rights, women's right were all won with a lot m…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Women aren't 50% of politics. It's not a terrible Bayesian prior to say he. (as someone who says "they" for hypothetical humans)
But when done systemically it likely creates the expectation that politics is done only or mostly by men, therefore discouraging women from entering politics now and in the future. Which, I would argue, is a substantial net negative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the immediate aftermath of that showed deep disagreement about “what to do about that problem.” Leftists want to dismantle the “systems of oppression” they perceive produces that result. Libertarians want to get rid of qualified immunity and police unions. Conservatives are taken aback by the rioting and violence and for them the immediate need maintaining social order has overtaken the more long term desire…
I wonder how accurate these old standby run-of-the mill memes we repeat ad nauseum really are. What data are they based on, really? And even if they are true, might it be possible that people that hold these opinions hold them because they've never been involved in any serious in-depth analysis & discussion on the topics? There's not even that much serious, accurate, unbiased material out there to base such conversat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a republic where deal-making has to happen, if you ran on W, X, Y, and Z, you might have to compromise on Z to get W, X, and a watered-down version of Y. Doesn’t mean you changed your mind on Z or strict-Y, but you can’t get everything you want because other Americans want other things and they can’t get everything they want either. Maybe a lesser politician would only have gotten W and half of X If I owned a co…
There are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. They don't all run on the same set of promises (or else we'd presumably get all of those outcomes). Often their platform promises are in conflict with each other. They make deals with each other to get some of what they represent their constituents want in exchange for some of what the others' constituents want. This is necessary (and I believe by and large healthy) beh…
Is there precisely nothing that our massive improvements in information technology and widespread connectivity of the public to the internet can do to improve the state of our political process?
Is this situation optimal, no possible improvements can be made whatsoever?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a republic where deal-making has to happen, if you ran on W, X, Y, and Z, you might have to compromise on Z to get W, X, and a watered-down version of Y. Doesn’t mean you changed your mind on Z or strict-Y, but you can’t get everything you want because other Americans want other things and they can’t get everything they want either. Maybe a lesser politician would only have gotten W and half of X If I owned a co…
> If I owned a company and the people I hired to manage it were playing games like this Imagine that you get to hire 5 people to run the company on your behalf, and four other directors each also hire 5 people to further their interests. Some of those other four directors want things that are nearly enough exactly the opposite of what you want, and you can do nothing to expel them, and precious little to change their…
I am the owner of the company, and there's nothing I can do to expel them?
> Also, the best five people who are willing to fill the roles you control are not exactly the ones you would like to hire, but nevertheless, they're the best available and willing. Now what?
Well in the short term, you're screwed. But how plausible is this imaginary scenario? There is literally no one better available, in a country of 300 million people? Are the politicians we have now the best of the best?
Take the choices we have in the next presidential election for example: Donald Trump vs Joe Biden. Are these the best "available and willing" candidates out there? Not one single person in the country more qualified than either of these fellows?