Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,476
2,757
118
Okay so he didn’t chase them on foot, which no self-respecting police officer would give a shit about, but he got in his car and tried to Hollywood car chase them and then reality ensued.

Like I feel for him, but he fucked up. He did a damn stupid thing and the only reason any public sentiment is on his side is because he didn’t maim or kill an unrelated party.

EDIT: also as an aside, the police are likely very much on his side, but they’re obligated to charge him with the offences he committed. Any leniency was up to the Crown Prosecution Service, who could have reviewed the facts and returned either a heavily reduced prosecution or even if they were feeling magnanimous (or very drunk), decide he had no case to answer.
I sympathise, because our homes are supposed to be our safest spaces. But, OTOH, it's in the public interest that we don't allow people to run others over willy-nilly; with the way things are divided right now 'crime' will just become a pretext for beating the shit out of someone you don't like. ('Crime' isn't in quotes here to suggest there wasn't a crime in this case, it's to make clear that I don't think there would be in all cases, or that a low-level crime (e.g. shoplifting) would be elevated to the level of shitbeating.)

The UK police outside of the Met are woefully under-resourced and overstretched, and people just don't have faith that they'll do anything (or be able to do anything) in the event of many crimes. I think people are still half expecting a fingerprint specialist when a car gets vandalised; the reality is you'll get a crime reference number and higher insurance premiums next year.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Take a look at the context. Equity practises are quite a way away from treating students from different backgrounds unfairly because you believe the student body should be homogeneous.
AA, by definition, involves treating people differently based on background. This isn't even debateable. You can justify it, you can portray it as a positive, but you can't say that AA/equity means treating everyone the same when, by definition, these practices don't.

Also, I never said I believed a student body should be hemogenous. I don't think a student body (or any body) "should" be anything.

...not really seeing how this simplistic history lesson is relevant. Demographic mixing isn't new. That's the point, and none of this changes that.
Because it's very disingenuous to compare migrations over the course of hundreds of thousands of years to the nature of migration in the 20th and 21st centuries.

This applies to some societies, but far from all. Numerous large and prosperous societies-- among them Spain, Egypt and China at points-- experienced demographic mixing for centuries prior to the modern age. Nobody is saying it was all peace and butterflies. But demographic mixing is factually, demonstrably not new.
Of those three examples, Egypt is the only one I could cite as an example of a demographically mixed society. China, I can't speak on as much, but China has:

a) Been dominated by the Han for much of its history

b) Has had waves of invasions that altered its demographic mix (the Mongols are a key example)

c) In the modern day, has very little immigration (fun fact: Germany accepted more refugees in one year than the PRC has in its entire history)

As for Spain, I don't know what demographic mixing you're referring to. Either you're referring to the Spanish Empire or the Moorish occupation, neither of which were harmonious (and if you're referring to the Roman conquest of the Visgoths, again, not harmonious, not to mention that Spain didn't come into being until 1492). And as I've already stated, empires have historically been multi-ethnic, but empires have also historically been spread through force, so this isn't really something I think you'd want to defend.

But even this is still beside the point, because saying that there's always been demographic mixing/diversity is a red herring. Diversity, as we currently understand it/treat it, is a very new phenomenon. The world's never been as interconnected as it is now, nor has travel been as easy. And this isn't even a bad or good thing in of itself, there's examples of multiculturalism succeeding, and examples of it failing, hence why I've said (despite numerous attempts to claim I said otherwise) that diversity is neutral in of itself.

Indeed it is generally part of life. And quite a few people have weird hangups about that, and treat people unfairly based on their background. If I as an employer get an indication a candidate is likely to do so, then it's quite reasonable to count that as a minus.
Yes, people are treated unfairly based on background in various cases. That's why anti-discrimination laws exist. That's separate from equity, which is an example of so-called positive discrimination.

AA isn't fringe, but it's routinely misrepresented and usually used in very limited ways. Pricing differences based on ethnicity is fringe. I've literally never seen it, having interacted with hundreds of businesses and orgs with DEI policies.
Very little of what's discussed is stuff we've experienced directly. There's a reason why I don't post personal examples as examples of wokeness/anti-wokeness (or much of anything) since personal experience doesn't say much about anything in this context. That you haven't encountered it personally doesn't change the fact that examples exist.

As for AA, not sure how it's fringe. It was contentious enough in the US for the supreme court to strike down, it's generated all sorts of controversy (see the Harvard scandal), etc.

All you have to do is stop pretending it's definitive or emblematic of DEI.
I'm not pretending anything. I've given you examples, I've defined what these things are, I've pointed out the legal controversities surrounding this stuff, etc.

Yes-- but if we use the same line of logic you're using for DEI ("X bad thing has sometimes been done in the name of Y, so therefore Y is bad"), where does that take us...?

Bad stuff has been done in the name of almost everything. That's the point.
Yes, bad stuff has been done in the name of everything. Correct. Hence why ideas can be evaluated alongside outcomes. Fascism has horrible ideas that lead to horrible outcomes, communism has nice ideas that lead to horrible outcomes, liberalism has good ideas that lead to good outcomes. None of this is new.

As I've done many times, I've addressed diversity, equity, and inclusion as concepts in their own right, and I've addressed DIE in its own right separately. That you've often conflated these things doesn't change much.

Good! We all know your thoughts on those things. You could try addressing the actual points raised instead.
I have addressed them. Multiple times.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
What equity practices aren't about giving certain demographics explicit favoritism with a goal of trying to get the final outcomes to match or exceed some preplanned demographic goals?

For example, look at the (since overturned by the courts) law passed in CA about the sex makeup of corporate boards, passed in the name of diversity and equity.

Or look at sex and higher education for the last 40 years. The explicit "equity" goal is that at least half of students and graduates be women. We hit that goal over 40 years ago (and went well past the 50% mark since), so instead of declaring it a job well done (or dialing it back or even swinging in the other direction as the numbers continued to move) we just keep narrowing the scope to the set of fields where that remains not the case, periodically narrowing it further as we go.
We have something similar in Oz. About 58% of university graduates are female, but are still counted as an equity group, the reason being that the earnings gap still exists.

How one feels about this is up to them, but it's not hard to see why this might be contentious. For instance, I work in a field that's 90% female, there's certainly no equity push to change that, and frankly, I don't think there should be, because it's not really society's job to ensure 50/50 representation across all sectors in my mind.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,800
6,155
118
Country
United Kingdom
AA, by definition, involves treating people differently based on background. This isn't even debateable. You can justify it, you can portray it as a positive, but you can't say that AA/equity means treating everyone the same when, by definition, these practices don't.
"Unfairly". Affirmative action is a (clumsy) effort to redress an existing imbalance in the other direction. Whereas discriminating in order to promote homogeneity is the opposite: it is an effort to increase the imbalance.

Because it's very disingenuous to compare migrations over the course of hundreds of thousands of years to the nature of migration in the 20th and 21st centuries.
I didn't compare them in nature, scope, or any other way. I simply said demographic mixing isn't new, which is historically true.

Of those three examples, Egypt is the only one I could cite as an example of a demographically mixed society. China, I can't speak on as much, but China has:

a) Been dominated by the Han for much of its history

b) Has had waves of invasions that altered its demographic mix (the Mongols are a key example)

c) In the modern day, has very little immigration (fun fact: Germany accepted more refugees in one year than the PRC has in its entire history)

As for Spain, I don't know what demographic mixing you're referring to. Either you're referring to the Spanish Empire or the Moorish occupation, neither of which were harmonious (and if you're referring to the Roman conquest of the Visgoths, again, not harmonious, not to mention that Spain didn't come into being until 1492). And as I've already stated, empires have historically been multi-ethnic, but empires have also historically been spread through force, so this isn't really something I think you'd want to defend.
!!?!? This is an extremely odd paragraph-- Why have you added extra requirements about how 'harmonious' or 'forced' the demographic mixing was? Leave the goalposts where they were.

But even this is still beside the point, because saying that there's always been demographic mixing/diversity is a red herring.
It's one /you/ introduced, when you chose to make the historically specious claim that demographic mixing is extremely modern.

Yes, people are treated unfairly based on background in various cases. That's why anti-discrimination laws exist. That's separate from equity, which is an example of so-called positive discrimination.
And have anti-discrimination laws fixed the problem, then?

Very little of what's discussed is stuff we've experienced directly. There's a reason why I don't post personal examples as examples of wokeness/anti-wokeness (or much of anything) since personal experience doesn't say much about anything in this context. That you haven't encountered it personally doesn't change the fact that examples exist.
Of course examples exist. Examples exist of all kinds of exceptionally rare nonsense. I'm not just talking from personal experience here-- pricing differences based on ethnicity are demonstrably exceptionally rare.

As for AA, not sure how it's fringe.
I just said it's not fringe.

Yes, bad stuff has been done in the name of everything. Correct. Hence why ideas can be evaluated alongside outcomes. Fascism has horrible ideas that lead to horrible outcomes, communism has nice ideas that lead to horrible outcomes, liberalism has good ideas that lead to good outcomes. None of this is new.

As I've done many times, I've addressed diversity, equity, and inclusion as concepts in their own right, and I've addressed DIE in its own right separately. That you've often conflated these things doesn't change much.
You've addressed diversity, equity and inclusion. You've addressed DEI (sometimes focusing on how it's distinct, and at other times using the two interchangeably when its convenient).

What you haven't done is addressed the fallaciousness of viewing an overall concept as bad if certain bad actions are /occasionally or rarely/ done in its name, even if the majority of instances have nothing to do with those bad actions. You've not properly addressed that once. You say we can evaluate ideas alongside outcomes, but thats not what you're doing here in any meaningful sense: you're just saying the outcome has been poor in these 2 or 3 examples you've intentionally dug up (of the many millions of organisations and businesses that have DEI policies), so it's bad.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
"Unfairly". Affirmative action is a (clumsy) effort to redress an existing imbalance in the other direction. Whereas discriminating in order to promote homogeneity is the opposite: it is an effort to increase the imbalance.
First, I didn't say "unfairly" in the post you quoted, so I don't know why you wrote that. Second, no-one is discriminating to promote homogeneity. There isn't a single institution I can think of where that's occurring. Third, how's that going? Because there's no shortage of institutions where imbalance is present, as cited on this very thread.

I didn't compare them in nature, scope, or any other way. I simply said demographic mixing isn't new, which is historically true.
Yes, it's historically true, and it's the world's biggest "technically" in saying so.

!!?!? This is an extremely odd paragraph-- Why have you added extra requirements about how 'harmonious' or 'forced' the demographic mixing was? Leave the goalposts where they were.
Because you're trying to equate very different scenarios from very different contexts.

It's one /you/ introduced, when you chose to make the historically specious claim that demographic mixing is extremely modern.
Which in any real sense of the word, it is. You can find antecedents across human history, but it's so far removed from context as to be worthless, considering that the majority of human societies across history have been hemogenous, whether that be in the tribe, or the nation.

I can cite another example - war. Yes, you can find plenty of violence between humans across hundreds of thousands of years (incidentally, with a higher casualty rate), but in terms of what we'd actually call war? That's a relatively modern development in history. You only get mass warfare after the agricultural revolution, not before. Saying that humans fought each other before this is a red herring - true, but besides the point.

And have anti-discrimination laws fixed the problem, then?
Not completely, no. No law is ever going to fix a problem entirely.

You've addressed diversity, equity and inclusion. You've addressed DEI (sometimes focusing on how it's distinct, and at other times using the two interchangeably when its convenient).

What you haven't done is addressed the fallaciousness of viewing an overall concept as bad if certain bad actions are /occasionally or rarely/ done in its name, even if the majority of instances have nothing to do with those bad actions. You've not properly addressed that once. You say we can evaluate ideas alongside outcomes, but thats not what you're doing here in any meaningful sense: you're just saying the outcome has been poor in these 2 or 3 examples you've intentionally dug up (of the many millions of organisations and businesses that have DEI policies), so it's bad.
I almost didn't bother responding to this part, because there's only so many times I can repeat myself.

Fine. Let's make this clear. Let's put outcomes to the side just for a moment. Let's forget every example I've cited thus far, from Coyne's blog to the Harvard scandal, and treat DIE purely in vacuum. Even if this was the case, one is operating under the principles that:

-Any given institution must have proportional representation

-The institution must take an active hand in ensuring this is the case

-If this isn't met, this is inherently problematic

-The nature of equity can be stretched to ensure whatever outcome is required (e.g. as mentioned, despite being the majority of university students, women are considered an equity group)

These are highly questionable practices and assumptions. Chances are you disagree, which is your prerogative. However, among the things that are notable is that equity takes one to some pretty strange places, or rather, places that require different standards. For instance:

-There was a big hubbub awhile back about Wikipedia mostly having male editors. That fanfiction is overwhelmingly female however, wasn't seen as an issue (I both write and edit, BTW)

-The Voice to Parliament debate in Australia has to get around the fact that if you're indigenous, you're more likely to have parlimentary representation, not less.

-There's a big hubbub about quotas in parliament for female representation, more push for females in STEM, while other fields are accepted as being acceptable to be predisposed towards one gender or the other

-Awhile back, there was an issue about the proportion of Asians in Google, despite the fact that the most common surname in Google's staff is (or was) "Singh."

This can go on forever, you can make justifications as to why certain forms of equity are needed and some aren't, but again, you get into weird places. For instance, the Wikipedia thing. I would actually agree that Wikipedia is more valuable to society than fanfiction, having more female editors would actually be a good thing, but at the same time, the people were arguing that discrimination had to be the route cause. Which is bizzare, because unless the culture in Wikipedia is different from Wikia, it's extremely rare for gender to ever come up. You'd have to argue that somehow, male editors know which editors are female, and are somehow discriminating against them. Or to bring up another example on these very forums, around the 1970s, when second wave feminism took off, publishing was skewed towards genres based on gender (e.g. if you were female, you were more likely to write romance). After the publishing industry was further opened up, the genres became more specialized, not less, in terms of who was writing for which genre. Something like equity would demand equal outcomes, but instead, you have the gender paradox.

The TL, DR version of this is that even if we forget all of that, DIE is resting on questionable assumptions, and ergo, questionable practices. Equality? Great. Equity? Eh...
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,800
6,155
118
Country
United Kingdom
First, I didn't say "unfairly" in the post you quoted, so I don't know why you wrote that.
Because I wrote it in the post to which you were responding.

Yes, it's historically true, and it's the world's biggest "technically" in saying so.
[...]
Because you're trying to equate very different scenarios from very different contexts.
Literally never equated them. You said something factually inaccurate and I corrected it-- That's all that happened here. Then, rather than just acknowledge it and move on, you added a truckload of extra criteria and got mega snippy.

I can cite another example - war. Yes, you can find plenty of violence between humans across hundreds of thousands of years (incidentally, with a higher casualty rate), but in terms of what we'd actually call war? That's a relatively modern development in history. You only get mass warfare after the agricultural revolution, not before. Saying that humans fought each other before this is a red herring - true, but besides the point.
I mean, relative to the history of the human species, war is pretty new, yes-- dating to about 4,700 years ago. Most people wouldn't colloquially call that a "modern development".

But of course war and regular fighting are different things with distinct definitions. You just said demographic mixing and made a mistake. Sorry.

Fine. Let's make this clear. Let's put outcomes to the side just for a moment. Let's forget every example I've cited thus far, from Coyne's blog to the Harvard scandal, and treat DIE purely in vacuum. Even if this was the case, one is operating under the principles that:

-Any given institution must have proportional representation

-The institution must take an active hand in ensuring this is the case

-If this isn't met, this is inherently problematic

-The nature of equity can be stretched to ensure whatever outcome is required (e.g. as mentioned, despite being the majority of university students, women are considered an equity group)

These are highly questionable practices and assumptions. Chances are you disagree, which is your prerogative. However, among the things that are notable is that equity takes one to some pretty strange places, or rather, places that require different standards. For instance:

-There was a big hubbub awhile back about Wikipedia mostly having male editors. That fanfiction is overwhelmingly female however, wasn't seen as an issue (I both write and edit, BTW)

-The Voice to Parliament debate in Australia has to get around the fact that if you're indigenous, you're more likely to have parlimentary representation, not less.

-There's a big hubbub about quotas in parliament for female representation, more push for females in STEM, while other fields are accepted as being acceptable to be predisposed towards one gender or the other

-Awhile back, there was an issue about the proportion of Asians in Google, despite the fact that the most common surname in Google's staff is (or was) "Singh."

This can go on forever, you can make justifications as to why certain forms of equity are needed and some aren't, but again, you get into weird places. For instance, the Wikipedia thing. I would actually agree that Wikipedia is more valuable to society than fanfiction, having more female editors would actually be a good thing, but at the same time, the people were arguing that discrimination had to be the route cause. Which is bizzare, because unless the culture in Wikipedia is different from Wikia, it's extremely rare for gender to ever come up. You'd have to argue that somehow, male editors know which editors are female, and are somehow discriminating against them. Or to bring up another example on these very forums, around the 1970s, when second wave feminism took off, publishing was skewed towards genres based on gender (e.g. if you were female, you were more likely to write romance). After the publishing industry was further opened up, the genres became more specialized, not less, in terms of who was writing for which genre. Something like equity would demand equal outcomes, but instead, you have the gender paradox.

The TL, DR version of this is that even if we forget all of that, DIE is resting on questionable assumptions, and ergo, questionable practices. Equality? Great. Equity? Eh...
Ooook, so all of this is /still/ just addressing a single form of equity. You just laid out a bunch of "operating principles" that are completely unnecessary.

Let me take the same approach as you've done here for the concept of "equality".

"Let's take equality purely in a vacuum. One must be operating under the principles that:

* Everyone must be treated equally;

* The organisation must take an active hand in ensuring it;

* if not everyone is treated equally, it's inherently problematic.

These are very questionable practices and assumptions! If we follow these, the organisation cannot refuse liquor to someone underage, or provide sanitary products like tampons to women. Doctors cannot offer prostate cancer screenings to men without offering them to everyone. Films cannot have age ratings, and rollercoasters cannot have height restrictions. Therefore equality is highly contentious".

Hmm. That's just obviously ridiculous, though. Maybe i shouldn't just come up with some "operating principles" of my own devising and then insist that "equality" must follow them to the extreme in order to qualify...
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Literally never equated them. You said something factually inaccurate and I corrected it-- That's all that happened here.
What have I said that's factually inaccurate?

Then, rather than just acknowledge it and move on, you added a truckload of extra criteria and got mega snippy.
So historical context is "extra criteria" then?

I mean, relative to the history of the human species, war is pretty new, yes-- dating to about 4,700 years ago. Most people wouldn't colloquially call that a "modern development".

But of course war and regular fighting are different things with distinct definitions. You just said demographic mixing and made a mistake. Sorry.
Actually, I said "diversity is a very new phenomenon," at which point you shifted to the Great Migrations. I didn't introduce demographic mixing, you did.

But again, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it's silly to compare events that have transpired over hundreds, even thousands of years, under completely different circumstances, to the mass migration of the 20th and 21st centuries, and the ideas of diversity and multiculturalism as we understand them. No matter how you, or anyone else feels about diversity, be you the biggest supporter or critic of multiculturalism, it's silly to claim human migration/invasion/mixing is relevant to the discussion.

Ooook, so all of this is /still/ just addressing a single form of equity. You just laid out a bunch of "operating principles" that are completely unnecessary.

Let me take the same approach as you've done here for the concept of "equality".

"Let's take equality purely in a vacuum. One must be operating under the principles that:

* Everyone must be treated equally;

* The organisation must take an active hand in ensuring it;

* if not everyone is treated equally, it's inherently problematic.

These are very questionable practices and assumptions!
You jest, but a lot of people would call those questionable assumptions, yes. Hence the press to treat people equitably rather than equally.

If we follow these, the organisation cannot refuse liquor to someone underage, or provide sanitary products like tampons to women. Doctors cannot offer prostate cancer screenings to men without offering them to everyone. Films cannot have age ratings, and rollercoasters cannot have height restrictions. Therefore equality is highly contentious".
Well first, tampons are offered in a number of male bathrooms as well in the US and UK, but that aside, these aren't equivalent examples. Liquor and film ratings, everyone will eventually reach the age of 18 (or whatever equivalent) and be able to access these things. Barring mishap, everyone will stop being a child (and be forced to pay full price train tickets), and everyone will get to be a senior (and get the discount). You're still being treated equally by these measures. This isn't the same as equity. For instance, to use the university example again, half of the population can't become a woman. By its very nature, the equity policy applies specifically to one half of the population, not the other. This isn't the same as those equality policies where everyone is treated the same way over the course of their lives. Even if I can't get into an R-18 film at the age of 15, this isn't unequal treatment, because I'll eventually reach 18 regardless.

Hmm. That's just obviously ridiculous, though. Maybe i shouldn't just come up with some "operating principles" of my own devising and then insist that "equality" must follow them to the extreme in order to qualify...
Except I'm not the one who's come up with those policies. Nor have you. The policies exist, I've described the policies as enacted by other people, and you've insisted that I've come up with "operating principles."
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,800
6,155
118
Country
United Kingdom
What have I said that's factually inaccurate?
That demographic mixing/diversity-- just that, with no extra criteria like "harmoniousness" added-- is extremely modern.

So historical context is "extra criteria" then?
Depending on the original statement, yes, it certainly can be. Such as if I said voting is extremely modern to the 1900s, that would be factually inaccurate-- and it would be adding extra criteria if someone then said "yeah but the examples of voting from before weren't very egalitarian or fair so they don't count".

Actually, I said "diversity is a very new phenomenon," at which point you shifted to the Great Migrations. I didn't introduce demographic mixing, you did.
Diversity is simply a description of multiple different types of people coexisting in the same area. If you want to talk about some other modern ideal or mindset, that goes beyond diversity.


But again, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it's silly to compare events that have transpired over hundreds, even thousands of years, under completely different circumstances, to the mass migration of the 20th and 21st centuries, and the ideas of diversity and multiculturalism as we understand them.
And I don't know how many times I have to say this: I DIDN'T COMPARE THEM. You used a term that applies to either, and I pointed that out. That's all.

You jest, but a lot of people would call those questionable assumptions, yes. Hence the press to treat people equitably rather than equally.

Well first, tampons are offered in a number of male bathrooms as well in the US and UK, but that aside, these aren't equivalent examples. Liquor and film ratings, everyone will eventually reach the age of 18 (or whatever equivalent) and be able to access these things. Barring mishap, everyone will stop being a child (and be forced to pay full price train tickets), and everyone will get to be a senior (and get the discount). You're still being treated equally by these measures. This isn't the same as equity. For instance, to use the university example again, half of the population can't become a woman. By its very nature, the equity policy applies specifically to one half of the population, not the other. This isn't the same as those equality policies where everyone is treated the same way over the course of their lives. Even if I can't get into an R-18 film at the age of 15, this isn't unequal treatment, because I'll eventually reach 18 regardless.
Whoosh. 100% missing the point.

Dude, what you've given are just explanations for why it's still /fair/ to treat people unequally in these circumstances. Which is exactly my point: you can do exactly the same thing with equity, showing how it can be fair in certain circumstances, such as offering wheelchair access.

What you can't do is just write a few axioms, without context, then insist that if they were followed to the absolute letter regardless of circumstance they'd be unfair. That's what you did with equity. And to show the ridiculousness, I did the same thing with equality.

Except I'm not the one who's come up with those policies. Nor have you. The policies exist, I've described the policies as enacted by other people, and you've insisted that I've come up with "operating principles."
You're the one who's decided these principles are definitive of equity, when they're absolutely not. To one organisation equity could mean that. To ten others, it could mean wheelchair access and cheaper tickets for the unemployed and students. But you've decided the latter and the former are all in a big bad group together because they both qualify as "equity".
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,760
846
118
Country
United States
I sympathise, because our homes are supposed to be our safest spaces. But, OTOH, it's in the public interest that we don't allow people to run others over willy-nilly; with the way things are divided right now 'crime' will just become a pretext for beating the shit out of someone you don't like. ('Crime' isn't in quotes here to suggest there wasn't a crime in this case, it's to make clear that I don't think there would be in all cases, or that a low-level crime (e.g. shoplifting) would be elevated to the level of shitbeating.)

The UK police outside of the Met are woefully under-resourced and overstretched, and people just don't have faith that they'll do anything (or be able to do anything) in the event of many crimes. I think people are still half expecting a fingerprint specialist when a car gets vandalised; the reality is you'll get a crime reference number and higher insurance premiums next year.
This is one hundred percent the problem with wokeness. You have underfunded police, no automated drone police dogs on the street, and progressives who think just because they are young that they will be able to outran the crime but don’t realize when they are old and people are robbing them at their home or on the street like what’s happening in San Francisco and New York City with elderly. Asian grandparents it will be too late.

Joe Biden is right we need more police funding and mental healthcare.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,800
6,155
118
Country
United Kingdom
This is one hundred percent the problem with wokeness. You have underfunded police, no automated drone police dogs on the street
That's a new one: wokeness is to blame for the lack of automated drone police dogs. Are you a parody account?

and progressives who think just because they are young that they will be able to outran the crime but don’t realize when they are old and people are robbing them at their home or on the street like what’s happening in San Francisco and New York City with elderly. Asian grandparents it will be too late.
Uhrm, I can guarantee that progressives are not basing their thought process on the idea that they can get away from any crime and that's why we don't need police. That's completely inane.

However, progressives do tend to acknowledge that increasing police presence on the street is one of the least effective ways of reducing crime. And that funnelling money and tech into an unreformed, violent and repressive police force doesn't tend to make people safer.

I've been the target of multiple crimes at the hands of the police, and I can guarantee you I wouldn't be feeling any safer if the perpetrators had had access to better weapons and drones.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
You have underfunded police, no automated drone police dogs on the street, and progressives who think just because they are young that they will be able to outran the crime but don’t realize when they are old and people are robbing them at their home or on the street like what’s happening in San Francisco and New York City with elderly. Asian grandparents it will be too late.
Progressives do not want underfunded police. They want responsible, accountable, non-militarised police who don't abuse their power, kill ethnic minorities for lulz or colloborate with far right groups to oppress the left.

The basis of the term "defund the police" is the idea that were society to spend more on public services to make a more just and equitable society, there would be a lot less crime to require policing. As a slogan, however, it demonstrates a staggering naivety about how easily it may be misrepresented.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,965
4,715
118
This is one hundred percent the problem with wokeness. You have underfunded police, no automated drone police dogs on the street, and progressives who think just because they are young that they will be able to outran the crime but don’t realize when they are old and people are robbing them at their home or on the street like what’s happening in San Francisco and New York City with elderly. Asian grandparents it will be too late.

Joe Biden is right we need more police funding and mental healthcare.
troy-point.gif

Quick question; Considering how heavily policed America already is and the large percentage of the country that's in prison, exactly how much more police and incarcerations are necessary for this whole system to finally work?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hades

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,309
3,432
118
Cop city is one glaring ongoing example of why police seriously don't need more money, they need accountability the kind of which everyone else must have.


The 2020 police killing of George Floyd launched the largest protests in U.S. history and a nationwide reckoning with systemic racism and police brutality. Now, Georgia’s Attorney General Chris Carr has shamefully invoked Floyd’s killing and the subsequent uprising in a sweeping criminal indictment of activists protesting a $90 million Atlanta police training center known as “Cop City.” Carr’s actions must be understood as extreme intimidation tactics that we need to resist. They must not set a precedent.

On September 5, Carr obtained indictments against 61 people, alleging violations of the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law, over ongoing efforts to halt construction of Cop City. Indicted activists, including a protest observer, face steep penalties of up to 20 years in prison. Three bail fund organizers face additional money laundering charges, and five people also face state domestic terrorism charges.

The indictment’s theory is shocking, and its combination of charges is unprecedented.

Georgia’s legislature intended RICO to combat organized crime, not to punish protest, civil disobedience, or isolated crimes. Yet according to Carr, opposing construction of Cop City amounts to a criminal conspiracy under the state RICO statute. To make its case, the indictment relies on people’s beliefs and community organizing as the connective tissue for sweeping criminal liability. It devotes 25 pages to vilifying Defend the Atlanta Forest (DTAF), the grassroots movement opposing Cop City’s construction, identifying its “beginnings” in the nationwide protests against George Floyd’s murder and protests in Georgia against the police killing of Atlanta resident Rayshard Brooks, and calling out the movement’s “anarchist ideals.” It paints the provision of mutual aid, the advocacy of collectivism, and even the publishing of zines as hallmarks of a criminal enterprise. In doing so, it flies in the face of First Amendment protections for speech, assembly, and association.

Georgia attorney general Chris Carr speaks at a press conference in Atlanta, as Georgia governor BrianKemp (in the background to the right) looks on.

Georgia attorney general Chris Carr speaks at a press conference as Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (on the right) looks on.
Nathan Posner/Shutterstock


While Carr wants to prosecute a protest movement as if it were a full-fledged organized crime ring, much of the alleged conduct is far less severe. For example, the indictment’s list of alleged criminal conduct repeatedly includes: people trying to occupy the forest in which Cop City would be built, reimbursements for protest supplies, and characterization of individuals attempting to join a “mob” to overwhelm the police. Even innocuous acts like buying food, writing “ACAB,” or distributing flyers are made out to be the cornerstones of a nefarious criminal scheme.

To the extent that unlawful conduct such as property crimes could be alleged, Georgia prosecutors could have chosen to press those specific lesser charges. Instead, the indictment haphazardly sweeps many forms of opposition to Cop City, including speech, peaceful protest activities, and minor acts of civil disobedience, into felony violations of Georgia’s anti-racketeering law.

Indeed, Georgia officials have repeatedly chosen to escalate charges beyond any legitimate need. In March of this year, Georgia police stigmatized 42 Cop City activists with arrests for “domestic terrorism.” This is exactly the kind of overreach rights groups warned about and objected to when Georgia’s legislature amended the domestic terrorism law in 2017 to add a harsher punishment — up to 35 years — to property crimes that were already illegal, simply because of accompanying political expression critical of government policy. It’s chilling to see “domestic terrorism” charges formally levied against five people in the recent indictment.

Taken together, these disproportionate charges send a clear message: Think twice before voicing your dissent. Unfortunately, punitive intimidation tactics against civil rights, social justice, and environmental activists is not new. We do not forget that civil rights movement leaders like Rep. John Lewis and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were labeled security threats and investigated, monitored, and often arrested — including in Georgia — based on their organizing and civil disobedience in the pursuit of equality. If Georgia’s RICO and “domestic terrorism” laws had been available to prosecutors in the civil rights era, they could easily have been misused to persecute activists.

Today, there is legitimate concern that Georgia’s sweeping indictment could form a playbook for other prosecutors and state officials seeking to stifle political dissent. Several states now have RICO and domestic terrorism laws on the books. But Attorney General Carr’s actions must not set a precedent.

Instead, Georgia should honor a better precedent. Atlanta a critical hub of the modern civil rights movement — and the protection of protest is integral to both our rights and our democracy. Attorney General Carr’s trumped-up and excessive charges against Cop City activists should be dropped immediately.


 
Last edited:

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,476
2,757
118
View attachment 9695

Quick question; Considering how heavily policed America already is and the large percentage of the country that's in prison, exactly how much more police and incarcerations are necessary for this whole system to finally work?
Just put all the guilty people in one prison and all the innocent people in a different prison. Never the twain shall meet.

I'm not sure which prison you need to put the police in here. But put the robot dogs in the other one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,965
4,715
118
Just put all the guilty people in one prison and all the innocent people in a different prison. Never the twain shall meet.

I'm not sure which prison you need to put the police in here. But put the robot dogs in the other one.
Just do like The Dark Knight Rises and lock 'm all up in the sewer.

...

God, thinking about that stupid shit gave me a good laugh!
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
That demographic mixing/diversity-- just that, with no extra criteria like "harmoniousness" added-- is extremely modern.
I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself (frankly, I'm surprised I have the stamina to repeat it yet again), but to say this (again), that there's been demographic mixing/diveristy of people throughout history is a red herring in the context of the 20th and 21st centuries. And harmoniousness is hardly "extra criteria" when said mixing of prior millennia was often through invasion, as opposed to the immigration of the modern day.

Depending on the original statement, yes, it certainly can be. Such as if I said voting is extremely modern to the 1900s, that would be factually inaccurate-- and it would be adding extra criteria if someone then said "yeah but the examples of voting from before weren't very egalitarian or fair so they don't count".
Even by that, very few people would equate voting of the late 19th/early 20th centuries with voting of ages prior.

Diversity is simply a description of multiple different types of people coexisting in the same area. If you want to talk about some other modern ideal or mindset, that goes beyond diversity.
The description of diversity, as you put it, is indeed, a new phenomenon. The only exceptions to that are either if you greatly increase the area in question (I've already used empires as an example) or get highly specific cases (e.g. Egypt).

And I don't know how many times I have to say this: I DIDN'T COMPARE THEM. You used a term that applies to either, and I pointed that out. That's all.
Yes, you pointed it out, and I pointed out it was a disingenuous comparison. Similar to voting, it's silly to bring up prior voting systems and put them in the same context as the late 19th/early 20th centuries, where you start to get universal sufferage. The Athenians had democracy of a sort for instance, but democracy in the sense that, among other things, slaves couldn't vote. It's not really democracy as we'd call it in the modern context.

Whoosh. 100% missing the point.

Dude, what you've given are just explanations for why it's still /fair/ to treat people unequally in these circumstances. Which is exactly my point: you can do exactly the same thing with equity, showing how it can be fair in certain circumstances, such as offering wheelchair access.

What you can't do is just write a few axioms, without context, then insist that if they were followed to the absolute letter regardless of circumstance they'd be unfair. That's what you did with equity. And to show the ridiculousness, I did the same thing with equality.
The wheelchair access isn't a good example of equity, because the people who don't need wheelchairs aren't disadvantaged by the presence of a ramp. That's not the same thing with equity as it's usually applied (removal of advanced testing, AA, etc.)

As for the equality examples you posted, I have no problem believing you wrote them in jest, but a lot of them are similar to arguments that are actually made, so even if you didn't intend Poe's law, it still applies.

You're the one who's decided these principles are definitive of equity, when they're absolutely not. To one organisation equity could mean that. To ten others, it could mean wheelchair access and cheaper tickets for the unemployed and students. But you've decided the latter and the former are all in a big bad group together because they both qualify as "equity".
This is borderline motte-and-bailey.

I've given you examples of equity. I didn't implement these examples, nor call them examples of equity, but they have been implemented, and done so in the name of equity. If all equity was was wheelchair access or cheaper student tickets, almost no-one would have a problem with it. But the examples given are examples of equity. If there's a nicer, cuddlier version of equity. If there's a new word for the examples of equity cited ("equinimity?"), we can start discussing equinimity and leave equity to the side, but until then, we're left discussing equity, because the things discussed have been called equity, done in the name of equity, and have been contrasted with equality.

Uhrm, I can guarantee that progressives are not basing their thought process on the idea that they can get away from any crime and that's why we don't need police. That's completely inane.



Certainly not every progressive wants to abolish the police, that doesn't change the existence of a police abolition movement, as distinct from those advocating reform.

Again, kind of like equity, though at least here there's a clearer divide.

I've been the target of multiple crimes at the hands of the police, and I can guarantee you I wouldn't be feeling any safer if the perpetrators had had access to better weapons and drones.
But robo-dogs, Sil. Robo-dogs!

Jesting aside, I rarely bring up personal expereinces but all I can say is that as someone who's had to call the police more times in the last 6 years than all the prior years of my life combined, who's seen people injured by criminals...well, you can guess where my views lie.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,760
846
118
Country
United States
That's a new one: wokeness is to blame for the lack of automated drone police dogs. Are you a parody account?



Uhrm, I can guarantee that progressives are not basing their thought process on the idea that they can get away from any crime and that's why we don't need police. That's completely inane.

However, progressives do tend to acknowledge that increasing police presence on the street is one of the least effective ways of reducing crime. And that funnelling money and tech into an unreformed, violent and repressive police force doesn't tend to make people safer.

I've been the target of multiple crimes at the hands of the police, and I can guarantee you I wouldn't be feeling any safer if the perpetrators had had access to better weapons and drones.
The sources I am getting state that the New York City budget was cut by at least 317 million(A debunker website of NYC defunding the police to one billion(NYT). Seattle attempts a 50% cut. But the problem isn't even the cuts themselves; it's demoralizing new police recruits, causing current police officers to retire, and deterring police recruits from many communities of color when they are the ones who want police the most unless they are white upper-class liberals.

This a country swimming in guns, and will be swimming with more guns decades later, and you want less police??? The logic doesn't hold. As for automated police dogs, they serve as an extra camera, just don't fucking arm them with AR15s/M4s.

Plus you have people who want to take out the electric systems in whole counties via attacks on substations, and progressives still LARP about the FBI being bad as well as the police.



For the 317 million figure: