Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[CM156]

I'm not 100% sure medieval crusaders are the best model for the modern world, although one can certainly argue that they knocked that particular heresy on the head.

Look, we may not agree with their methods, but we can't argue with their results.

 

[Gergar12]

So, you want arbitrary mass arrest/detention without charge and the removal of the presumption of innocence from the people, and you're complaining that the media are reporting that the authorities have tortured and murdered people who were never found guilty.

In essence, you want despotism.

And what is your solution to the Mexican people being forced to watch their children being targeted for recruitment murder and extortion, activists dying, Mexican military with fighting with a hand behind it’s back. This just happens to be the most effective method that has worked in a country near it.

However ultimately it’s not up to me or you, it’s up to the Mexican people to solve this and if this is their solution so be it and the western world should butt out.

 

[Silvanus]

And what is your solution to the Mexican people being forced to watch their children being targeted for recruitment murder and extortion, activists dying, Mexican military with fighting with a hand behind it’s back. This just happens to be the most effective method that has worked in a country near it.

One doesn't need to have their own proven solution in order to point out other proposed solutions are grotesque and barbaric.

Up to 132 people with no criminal conviction have been murdered by the authorities or died in arbitrary detention. That is more than died in the spate of gang violence that prompted the El Salvadoran state to undertake this in the first place. Do you consider their deaths to be acceptable? Do you consider the media to be in the wrong for reporting that innocent people have been put to death?

 

[Gergar12]

One doesn't need to have their own proven solution in order to point out other proposed solutions are grotesque and barbaric.

Up to 132 people with no criminal conviction have been murdered by the authorities or died in arbitrary detention. That is more than died in the spate of gang violence that prompted the El Salvadoran state to undertake this in the first place. Do you consider their deaths to be acceptable? Do you consider the media to be in the wrong for reporting that innocent people have been put to death?

They likely had gang tattoos. Don't get gang tattoos.

 

[Thaluikhain]

They likely had gang tattoos. Don't get gang tattoos.

Killing off people because of what's inked on them brings all sorts of terrible things to mind.

 

[Silvanus]

They likely had gang tattoos. Don't get gang tattoos.

Gonna answer the question or nah?

 

[Gergar12]

Killing off people because of what's inked on them brings all sorts of terrible things to mind.

It worked.

Crime in El Salvador - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

El Salvador murders plummet by over half in 2022 amid gang crackdown

Murders in El Salvador tumbled 56.8% in 2022 amid a widespread crackdown on gang violence, the government said on Tuesday, extending a sharp drop in killings in a nation which for years had one of the world's worst murder rates.

www.reuters.com

And gang members aren't Jews.

 

[Gergar12]

Gonna answer the question or nah?

The problem isn't just the murders. It relates to broken windows theory. They ruin everything. They consume economic growth, jobs, tourism, and quality of life, and everyone has to live in fear of being kidnapped, forced to join, or raped if they are women or even girls. The only country in Latin America worse than El Salvador was Honduras pre-2019 in terms of crime.

Americans like to complain about immigration, but millions can't make the trek to the US, and Canada, tens of thousands don't even speak Spanish let alone English.

 

[Silvanus]

The problem isn't just the murders. It relates to broken windows theory. They ruin everything. They consume economic growth, jobs, tourism, and quality of life, and everyone has to live in fear of being kidnapped, forced to join, or raped if they are women or even girls. The only country in Latin America worse than El Salvador was Honduras pre-2019 in terms of crime.

Americans like to complain about immigration, but millions can't make the trek to the US, and Canada, tens of thousands don't even speak Spanish let alone English.

Are you going to answer the question?

 

[Gergar12]

Are you going to answer the question?

No, I don't think the media shouldn't report it, but to say it's bad is being hyperbolic.

 

[Thaluikhain]

but to say it's bad is being hyperbolic.

To say "the state killing off 100+ people without trial is bad" is hyperbolic?

 

[Ag3ma]

To say "the state killing off 100+ people without trial is bad" is hyperbolic?

No, it isn't.

But on the other hand, does Gergar12 have a point here?

An argument could be made that if law and order collapses to a sufficiently low point, organised crime become sufficiently powerful and the police are unable to meet the challenge, it may need to be viewed as a military problem rather than a policing one. Think of it in terms that organised crime becomes equivalent to an illegal militia or rebel force. Suppressing crime and restoring order is a military operation, with allowances for high use of force and, unfortunately, collateral damage.

Sure, we can all agree that this is a lot less than ideal, will involve dead innocents, and in the hands of an unscrupulous government an extreme risk of tyranny. But if the situation gets bad enough to constitute a reasonable case for a national emergency, I'm not sure it is completely unjustifiable.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm just waiting to find out the murders dropped because of the president cutting a deal with the gangs to take their work elsewhere or something. Note, I have no proof of this, just cynical thinking.

 

[Satinavian]

Sure, we can all agree that this is a lot less than ideal, will involve dead innocents, and in the hands of an unscrupulous government an extreme risk of tyranny. But if the situation gets bad enough to constitute a reasonable case for a national emergency, I'm not sure it is completely unjustifiable.

True, but the problem is mostly the question of when exactly the situation is that dire. And that a lot of people are willing to employ such extraodinary measures far too soon because they don't really value the life of innocent bystanders or glorify easy violent macho solutions to difficult problems.

 

[Silvanus]

No, I don't think the media shouldn't report it, but to say it's bad is being hyperbolic.

You don't think the death of 132 people without any criminal conviction, at the hands of the state-- and the torture of many more-- is bad?

 

[Ag3ma]

True, but the problem is mostly the question of when exactly the situation is that dire. And that a lot of people are willing to employ such extraodinary measures far too soon because they don't really value the life of innocent bystanders or glorify easy violent macho solutions to difficult problems.

Well, precisely. This sort of reasoning is a classic way for autocratic governments to hand themselves extraordinary powers - the risk is extremely high. And potentially not just the government as it also potentially hands the military huge power, and that means whether the generals can be trusted too.

But I also think it is the sort of thing a country in a state of crisis - including a crime-driven crisis - may need to consider, and probably has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We can probably get some idea of what it's about from the rhetoric and attitude of the government does it, although in many cases I suspect often we will only find out with hindsight.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, it isn't.

But on the other hand, does Gergar12 have a point here?

An argument could be made that if law and order collapses to a sufficiently low point, organised crime become sufficiently powerful and the police are unable to meet the challenge, it may need to be viewed as a military problem rather than a policing one. Think of it in terms that organised crime becomes equivalent to an illegal militia or rebel force. Suppressing crime and restoring order is a military operation, with allowances for high use of force and, unfortunately, collateral damage.

Sure, we can all agree that this is a lot less than ideal, will involve dead innocents, and in the hands of an unscrupulous government an extreme risk of tyranny. But if the situation gets bad enough to constitute a reasonable case for a national emergency, I'm not sure it is completely unjustifiable.

Sure, under certain circumstances it might (might) be the lesser evil. It doesn't mean it's not evil, though.

Gergar said "but to say it's bad is being hyperbolic.". Not unjustified, not indefensible, but bad. Of course it's bad, wherever or not it is the other two.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It worked.

Do you think it's sustainable?

If it is sustainable, do you think it's compatible with a free society and an elected government? Is it possible a regieme, especially one that has been publicly accused and sanctioned by the US for making deals to gain political support from organized crime syndicates, might take the opportunity to use these immense and supposedly temporary dictatorial powers to solidify its power or further its own political ambitions. Is it normal in a democratic country for the president to use the military to force the civilian government to give the military more powers and remove civilian oversight?

If the government is allowed to snatch you off the street without giving any reason, or have you killed without any legal recourse or accountability. How exactly is that different from a gang?

Finally, in the longer term, if the police and army are no longer accountable to the civilian population in any way, what is their incentive to remain honest in their opposition to organized crime? Why does it matter to them if criminals victimize people who have absolutely no power? What is the rational incentive not to take a bribe and simply look the other way?

You say this has worked, but beyond the fact that I'm not so sure it has, the history of Latin America does not paint a picture of long term success. Using death squads to target organized crime is nothing new, and yet somehow the organized crime always comes back. It's almost like there are deeper economic and political problems which can't be solved by slapping on black tacticool gear and murdering teenagers until you've filled a quota.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Mexico is not a US ally, or at least a close one. They are neutral to the US. Ally my ass.

My comment refers to something at 6:50.

Edit: 9:25, let me translate to you what Mexican President AMLO stated. I would rather not lose face than kill the cartels who are destroying both Mexico and the US.

For reference invading Mexico isn't my solution, I also don't think drone strikes would help. This is my solution...

El Salvador clears way for mass trials as crackdown on gangs ramps up

Congress passes bill that could allow 900 people to be tried together if they are accused of being in the same criminal group

www.theguardian.com

Meanwhile the woke media, and NGOs who either offer no solutions, or bad solutions in this case are like.

One year into El Salvador's state of emergency

The authorities are systematically committing human rights violations.

www.amnesty.org

So who was it in the early '90s that was busted advocating for a violent coup if necessary for Mexico to ratify NAFTA? Because "chase Manhattan bank" is an awful weird way of pronouncing "mexico". As it was, the US government was responsible for detonating the Mexican economy in the wake of the latin-american debt crisis to force NAFTA ratification, and proceeded to screw them economically in the wake of its ratification by undermining Mexican agricultural production.

The US government and American financial sector THEMSELVES decided to be the unreasonable alternative to drug cartels for Mexican economic development.

 

[Gergar12]

You don't think the death of 132 people without any criminal conviction, at the hands of the state-- and the torture of many more-- is bad?

If done in the pursuit of the greater good, murders went down more than the number of people killed by the police.

Do you think it's sustainable?

If it is sustainable, do you think it's compatible with a free society and an elected government? Is it possible a regieme, especially one that has been publicly accused and sanctioned by the US for making deals to gain political support from organized crime syndicates, might take the opportunity to use these immense and supposedly temporary dictatorial powers to solidify its power or further its own political ambitions. Is it normal in a democratic country for the president to use the military to force the civilian government to give the military more powers and remove civilian oversight?

If the government is allowed to snatch you off the street without giving any reason, or have you killed without any legal recourse or accountability. How exactly is that different from a gang?

Finally, in the longer term, if the police and army are no longer accountable to the civilian population in any way, what is their incentive to remain honest in their opposition to organized crime? Why does it matter to them if criminals victimize people who have absolutely no power? What is the rational incentive not to take a bribe and simply look the other way?

You say this has worked, but beyond the fact that I'm not so sure it has, the history of Latin America does not paint a picture of long term success. Using death squads to target organized crime is nothing new, and yet somehow the organized crime always comes back. It's almost like there are deeper economic and political problems which can't be solved by slapping on black tacticool gear and murdering teenagers until you've filled a quota.

I don’t sport gang/cartel tattoos, I also don’t rape and murder people.