National Guard called into Minneapolis

[Houseman]

Against the wishes of the communities that are doing the looting?

I'd think so, yes, because the people who aren't looting and who are getting looted outnumber the people that are looting, I would guess.

What caused that distrust? Is that 'distrust' rational? Whether it works both ways depends on what is actually causing it

Yeah, those are questions that it would be helpful to answer.

People are rational to fear and distrust the police. The police are not rational to fear and distrust unarmed black people

Seems kind of like an unfair comparison/moving the goalposts when it's "people" at first and then "unarmed black people" later, especially since the police don't have perfect knowledge over who is or isn't unarmed in every situation.

But regardless, why do you think one side's prejudice is warranted, while the other side's prejudice isn't?

 

[Revnak]

In other relevant news, Portland Police are saying that freedom of the press is illegal.

 

[Trunkage]

Or it backfires and people pump more money into the police so that they can overpower the looters. Also, it can backfire by cementing and entrenching racism, and gives a reason for people to say "See? They're animals! They need to be put down!"

If this is a campaign tactic, I don't think it's a good way to get votes. "Mafia coercion tactics" are the first thing that springs to mind.

edit: Actually, it's kind of like stirring up a mob or a riot in order to run black people out of town. "Their presence provokes more destruction than would occur in their absence! It's their fault we're doing this! It won't stop until they're gone! Hate them, not us!"

I mean, that’s going to happen anyway. See Kaepernick. Those type of people were calling him similar things, and all he was doing was kneeling.

I personally think looting or property violence is bad. It dilutes your message. But your message is never to those guys. It’s to the quiet ones standing nearby.

Does that work the other way around? When cops distrust an 'unarmed black man', who's to blame?

I’m actually fine with them distrusting people. It part of the job. It shouldn’t lead to certain Unconscious reactions. Part of the training should be able to make decisions pressure. If your letting your distrust worsen the situation, your failing. And, you need to be aware that the general public hasn’t had the same training, so they can’t be expected to deescalate. Not everyone is cut out for the job.

If you want people to respond more appropriately, You’re going to have to find a way to get others to trust you. Everyone one of your colleagues who does the wrong thing damages your reputation, not just theirs

 

[Agema]

Or it backfires and people pump more money into the police so that they can overpower the looters.

Absolutely. They'll attempt to overpower a government just because it's trying to raise taxes - that's what the average right wing coup is. Clamping down on looters is small beans.

 

[Revnak]

Absolutely. They'll attempt to overpower a government just because it's trying to raise taxes - that's what the average right wing coup is. Clamping down on looters is small beans.

I do love when the only winning move is to assume nothing will ever get resolved no matter how hard we try. A better world is possible, inevitable even given the forces ultimately at play. The fire between is what remains unknown.

 

[Agema]

I do love when the only winning move is to assume nothing will ever get resolved no matter how hard we try. A better world is possible, inevitable even given the forces ultimately at play. The fire between is what remains unknown.

I think society is a constant back and forth. "The rich" tend to have the baseline advantage, and rely on the apathy, neglectfulness and disorder of "the poor" to maintain their station. (I use "the rich" and "the poor" as representative approximations to denote those parts of society who generally tend to occupy positions of societal power and those who do not.) The aim of the poor is vigilance, determination and acitivity to constrain the rich; the rich therefore aim to undermine those attitudes. The poor tend to force more equal distribution of power and wealth, then become complacent, and it slips away again until they become sufficiently unhapppy that it motivates them to rouse themselves, and so on. If the poor get too unhappy they riot or rebel, and if the rich get too unhappy they use the power of the state to suppress the poor.

The long-term aim of the elites is therefore effectively to find some way of making the poor permanently contentedly compliant, and the aim of the poor is a permanent state of awareness and action. One of things we might have hoped from socialism is a long-lasting sense of awareness amongst the poor of the need to keep up the political fight, even if socialism itself was not their desired end point, but that did not occur.

 

[Silvanus]

Well they didn't just vanish they likely changed their names. I think some of the suffragettes in the USA became part of the temperance movement for example.

Ok, but none of these movements are just continuations of the previous group. They may just contain some of the same people.

So, the point stands about Antifa. To ask what they'll do once their mission is complete is a moot question; the group will cease to exist. Some members might go on to do other stuff, sure, but that's just idle speculation.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Not at all. The core function of police- the reason why the ruling class allows money to be spent on them existing at all- is to prevent the property of the rich from being destroyed or taken. Destroying the property of the rich, or taking it, especially if it can be done with impunity, and despite the existence of the police, attacks their reason for existence directly. If there is no amount of police that can protect the property of the rich; if their conduct provokes more destruction of wealth than would occur in their absence, then the rationale for maintaining them in their current form is strained. Destruction and looting also spreads out the attention of police departments and gives them less resources to use cracking down on protestors or murdering random homeless by impromptu firing squad.

Hey now, I said pages ago anti-policing protest needs to be understood in economic rather than racialized terms, and the nature of protest understood in strategic logic terms parallel to terrorism (implying protest needs to be examined in context of fourth-generation asymmetric warfare), and I got tut-tut'ed for that.

If at this point we're regarding police forces', their behaviors, their responses, and their political support network as anything short of state-sponsored terrorism, we're sorely missing the mark.

 

[Silvanus]

Has this come up yet already?

Outrage at video showing child who was maced by police at Seattle protest

Protester who filmed the aftermath says he was arrested and spent two days in jail for what some are calling police retribution

www.theguardian.com

A seven-year-old child was maced during a non-violent protest in Seattle. Nearby police and emergency services did not step in, leaving the other protesters to provide amateur aid. And the man who took the video of the incident and posted it online was held without charge for two days & denied bail.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ok, but none of these movements are just continuations of the previous group. They may just contain some of the same people.

So, the point stands about Antifa. To ask what they'll do once their mission is complete is a moot question; the group will cease to exist. Some members might go on to do other stuff, sure, but that's just idle speculation.

In some ways they are the temperance movement as one of the arguments was something about men drinking objectified women more or something like that.

AntiFA won't go away because it's not a clear goal as such when "fascism" is becoming more of a nebulous term for any authority figure.


I mean on the local ITV news before we went into lockdown in the UK they were interviewing members of the public about what they thought about lockdown being brought in and one of them said words to the affect of "It's just a fascist plan by a fascist government".

AntiFA is weird in that they find people being allowed to use their rights to protest and their freedom of speech to be abhorrent but it's fine for them to beat people up in the streets. People present AntiFA as "protecting people". Yet often the things they turn up to protest would have come and gone without incident normally.

 

[Silvanus]

In some ways they are the temperance movement as one of the arguments was something about men drinking objectified women more or something like that.

I've never seen anything like this. I imagine this is just some fringe opinion someone came out with, and isn't representative of anything.

AntiFA won't go away because it's not a clear goal as such when "fascism" is becoming more of a nebulous term for any authority figure.

Right now, we have actual self-proclaimed fascists organising gatherings & protests in various countries. There have been white supremacists marching in the US, and recently we had a far-right gathering in London with the chant, "we're racist and that's the way we like it".

The goal at present seems quite clear to me, to combat the people above. They've gone about it in some pretty ill-advised and shitty ways sometimes. But I'm not seeing much confusion about their general purpose from themselves.

There's some conflation between the US administration and the far-right in America, because the President has made explicit overtures to the far right.

I mean on the local ITV news before we went into lockdown in the UK they were interviewing members of the public about what they thought about lockdown being brought in and one of them said words to the affect of "It's just a fascist plan by a fascist government".

Yes, the term gets thrown around a lot for things that aren't fascist. That member of the public won't be anything to do with Antifa.

AntiFA is weird in that they find people being allowed to use their rights to protest and their freedom of speech to be abhorrent but it's fine for them to beat people up in the streets.

They don't actually find anybody's right to protest or freedom of speech "abhorrent", though, do they? Counter-protest isn't censorship.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I've never seen anything like this. I imagine this is just some fringe opinion someone came out with, and isn't representative of anything.

Check Gospel Temperance under the history section

Temperance movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As an expression of moralism,[42] the membership of the temperance movement overlapped with that of the abolitionist movement and women's suffrage movement.[43][44][45]


......


Furthermore, the League was strongly supported by the WCTU: in some US states alcoholism had become epidemic and rates of domestic violence were also high. At that time, Americans drank about three times as much alcohol as they drank in the 2010s.[61] The League simultaneously campaigned for suffrage and temperance, with its leader Susan B. Anthony stating that "The only hope of the Anti-Saloon League's success lies in putting the ballot into the hands of women", i.e. it was expected that the first act that women were to take upon themselves after having obtained the right to vote, was to vote for an alcohol ban.[47]

Right now, we have actual self-proclaimed fascists organising gatherings & protests in various countries. There have been white supremacists marching in the US, and recently we had a far-right gathering in London with the chant, "we're racist and that's the way we like it".

And?

They've done it for years. They want attention. Let them shout themselves hoarse. They want enemies, people willing to violently attack them to feel justified.

Don't believe me it's happened for years?

This is a movie from the 1980s

The goal at present seems quite clear to me, to combat the people above. They've gone about it in some pretty ill-advised and shitty ways sometimes. But I'm not seeing much confusion about their general purpose from themselves.

yet they see to be seeing Nazis everywhere these days and regarding lots of things as evidence of a person being a Nazi

Here's a music video on it


Here's a research Scientist reading a letter activists sent to where he works which claims he's the head of a secret Neo-Nazi movement because he was critical of Anita Sarkeeian

There's some conflation between the US administration and the far-right in America, because the President has made explicit overtures to the far right.

By doing the OK hand gesture?

Or by showing silly photoshops including PEPE?

Yes, the term gets thrown around a lot for things that aren't fascist. That member of the public won't be anything to do with Antifa.

What if they are?

AntiFA isn't an organisation with rules and structure remember (or so the argument goes) thus anything defined by anyone as Fascist and they oppose it makes them AntiFA right? So that guy is AntiFA by those very rules. Either AntiFA is a group that can and does select membership or it isn't any anyone calling anything fascist and opposing it is AntiFA.

They don't actually find anybody's right to protest or freedom of speech "abhorrent", though, do they? Counter-protest isn't censorship.

ah but so often they use what's known and hecklers veto. Which amounts to and abuse of ones own rights to deny others the same.

This was because a gay religious conservative wanted to give a speech on campus

 

[Silvanus]

Check Gospel Temperance under the history section

Temperance movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where's the bit about drinking objectifying women?

Either way, that's the history section for a reason. This isn't a significant view held nowadays.

And?

They've done it for years. They want attention. Let them shout themselves hoarse. They want enemies, people willing to violently attack them to feel justified.

And when they turn violent? Far-right rallies have descended into assaults and racial attacks for centuries. The far-right protest that took place here in the UK over the weekend was characterised by violence, mostly directed towards the police.

I'm not saying that violence is therefore the answer. It's not, and people who turn out and end up fighting with them are just putting people in greater danger. What I am saying is that that the threat of far-right violence is present and real, and that's why anti-racists feel they need to turn out.

yet they see to be seeing Nazis everywhere these days and regarding lots of things as evidence of a person being a Nazi

Here's a music video on it

[SNIP]

Here's a research Scientist reading a letter activists sent to where he works which claims he's the head of a secret Neo-Nazi movement because he was critical of Anita Sarkeeian

[SNIP]

I have absolutely no interest in watching Youtube personalities expound on whatever-the-fuck. Some random guy writing a letter moaning about Thunderf00t is a non-event, and neither of these things have anything to do with "Antifa", however it's currently being defined.

By doing the OK hand gesture?

Or by showing silly photoshops including PEPE?

More by using racial slurs, referring to white supremacists as "very fine people", and spreading debunked stereotypes about ethnic groups.

What if they are?

AntiFA isn't an organisation with rules and structure remember (or so the argument goes) thus anything defined by anyone as Fascist and they oppose it makes them AntiFA right? So that guy is AntiFA by those very rules. Either AntiFA is a group that can and does select membership or it isn't any anyone calling anything fascist and opposing it is AntiFA.

"By those very rules" you just made up?

Nobody is saying everybody anti-fascist is "Antifa". That's not the only alternative to them being a structured organisation with membership, obviously.

ah but so often they use what's known and hecklers veto. Which amounts to and abuse of ones own rights to deny others the same.

This was because a gay religious conservative wanted to give a speech on campus

Right, so that's not about anybody's right to freedom of speech; it's about them receiving a specific platform. The freedom of speech doesn't afford you an enormous platform at Berkley.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Either way, that's the history section for a reason. This isn't a significant view held nowadays.

So is the temperance movement for the most part though lol.

And when they turn violent? Far-right rallies have descended into assaults and racial attacks for centuries. The far-right protest that took place here in the UK over the weekend was characterised by violence, mostly directed towards the police.

As were the protests the weekend before. where even the BBC were forced to admit 27 Police were inured.

I'm not saying that violence is therefore the answer. It's not, and people who turn out and end up fighting with them are just putting people in greater danger. What I am saying is that that the threat of far-right violence is present and real, and that's why anti-racists feel they need to turn out.

As is the threat of far left Violence.

Congressional baseball shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Florida driver admits to targeting Trump campaign volunteers

A man arrested after crashing into a Trump campaign tent in Northeast Florida said he did it on purpose. According to CNN, Gregory Timm told police in Jacksonville that he doesn't like President Trump. Last Saturday, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said Timm plowed into a tent where Trump...

cbs12.com

YouTube headquarters shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The last one more debatable than the others admittedly.

I have absolutely no interest in watching Youtube personalities expound on whatever-the-fuck. Some random guy writing a letter moaning about Thunderf00t is a non-event, and neither of these things have anything to do with "Antifa", however it's currently being defined.

Except the letter (1 of 7) sent was sent to his institution, the local Police where he lives and all the local paper and radio station. In a country where such offences carry the death penalty still.

Again AntiFA isn't a group but a mindset people keep saying so yes they are AntiFA because they believe Thunderf00t is a fascist because he won't agree with them and their ideological cause leader.........

More by using racial slurs, referring to white supremacists as "very fine people", and spreading debunked stereotypes about ethnic groups.

Oh you mean like when he referenced MS-13 stabbing a man over 100 times then cutting out his heart and beheading him while he was dying and it was instead spun as him talking about all immigrants?

"By those very rules" you just made up?

Nobody is saying everybody anti-fascist is "Antifa". That's not the only alternative to them being a structured organisation with membership, obviously.

Except if anyone can claim to be Anti-fascist which is the only requirement to be called Anti-FA then yes they are Anti-Fa but those standards.

Right, so that's not about anybody's right to freedom of speech; it's about them receiving a specific platform. The freedom of speech doesn't afford you an enormous platform at Berkley.

No being invited to speak by a group did.
They chose to invite him and wanted to let him use said platform.
Other groups are welcome to invite their own speakers so people can hear them. It's how the free exchange of ideas is meant to work.

 

[Silvanus]

As were the protests the weekend before. where even the BBC were forced to admit 27 Police were inured.

Uhrm, okay. What relevance has this to the point? Is it just whataboutism?

As is the threat of far left Violence.

Ditto.

Except the letter (1 of 7) sent was sent to his institution, the local Police where he lives and all the local paper and radio station. In a country where such offences carry the death penalty still.

Again AntiFA isn't a group but a mindset people keep saying so yes they are AntiFA because they believe Thunderf00t is a fascist because he won't agree with them and their ideological cause leader.........

A "mindset"? Bollocks is it. You're just applying your own criteria so you can lump every random incident of nonsense together and blame a group for them. No association exists between this random letter-writer and the people turning out and calling themselves "Antifa". You've just decided to associate one with the other.

Various yahoos write letters about armageddon and the end-times and fire and brimstone. Am I to assume they represent the protestant "mindset"?

Oh you mean like when he referenced MS-13 stabbing a man over 100 times then cutting out his heart and beheading him while he was dying and it was instead spun as him talking about all immigrants?

What the hell does this have to do with anything? I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make by going on about how bad MS-13 is.

Except if anyone can claim to be Anti-fascist which is the only requirement to be called Anti-FA then yes they are Anti-Fa but those standards.

Why're you using "those standards"? You seem to be arguing against that standard, but I was never using it. So... why use it now?

No being invited to speak by a group did.
They chose to invite him and wanted to let him use said platform.
Other groups are welcome to invite their own speakers so people can hear them. It's how the free exchange of ideas is meant to work.

Ok, but if it's not freedom of speech that affords that platform, then this isn't an instance of freedom of speech being infringed, which was my point.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Does that work the other way around? When cops distrust an 'unarmed black man', who's to blame?

Of course the answer is the Police Force. In many different avenues.

First and foremost, every stereotype about the rampant criminality of the black community stems from the Police Force itself. Again, like I'll always say, the Black Community isn't not without crime. Of course there's crime. But the problem is dishonesty within the police force. From training cops that every situation is a life or death situation that has gotten many an innocent civilian killed to frequently reported yet constantly ignored misconduct of police officers.

We just have one person on the Forensic side of things (Annie Dookhan) who's misconduct has led up to 20,000 cases being overturned due to a lack of true evidence and her false testimony.

That's one woman.

You have officers speaking up about how the quota system is created and what happens if you disobey. You have a metric ton of police officers being arrested for falsifying evidence that anyone can go through it themselves. You have ample reason to question cops. I know some people don't, but you really should.

And these are the people who got caught. Not every cop is a crook, but there are enough that one (if they truly wish to be impartial) will have to doubt them as much as they have to doubt the 'criminals'. The burden of evidence because now more pronounced due to the police's very own actions.

 

[Trunkage]

So is the temperance movement for the most part though lol.

I liked how you thought the Temperance Movement was about objectifying women and not about murdering through domestic violence, despite your evidence saying that DV was a really important component.

 

[happyninja42]

Do you want to hear the argument that the cop had reason to fear for his life, and his fight or flight response flared up? Will that excuse a cop's actions if he killed a black man out of fear for his own life? Who is out there telling the black community to have an open mind and not rush to judgement when it comes to encounters with police?

This has been the situation for decades now. You ask "Do you want to hear the argument that the cop had reason to fear for his life, and his fight or flight response flared up? Will that excuse a cop's action if he killed a black man out of fear for his own life?" The answer is YES, it does, and has, over and over. They get off when they are clearly in the wrong based on evidence, over and over. Also "And who is out there telling the black community to have an open mind....etc?" Again, you ask this as if it hasn't been the case for decades. This isn't a new situation. There are people alive now, who participated in similar upheavals back in it happened to Rodney King, and others, and every time, they are asked to stay cool and chill, to trust in the system, and let the system do it's job, and Justice Will Prevail. Except it doesn't. And hasn't for a very long time, and the way it doesn't prevail, seems to be heavily slanted in a particular way.

So no, frankly they are tired of hearing the same bullshit song and dance, over and over, while the bodies of their family and friends pile up in the streets. They don't trust that the system has their back. I think the main difference now, is that we have enough ubiquitous recording devices, that it's becoming a lot easier to provide much more credible evidence, that clearly refutes the bullshit narrative the cops often try and peddle to escape the repercussions of their actions.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I liked how you thought the Temperance Movement was about objectifying women and not about murdering through domestic violence, despite your evidence saying that DV was a really important component.

I'm sure if I spent a few hours digging I could find that claim too

Oh wait it didn't take that long

Drunk men are a danger to women. Should feminists oppose boozing? | Moira Donegan

Rather than moralist disdain, Prohibition activists wanted alcohol banned for a more practical reason: women’s safety

www.theguardian.com

.....and more likely to subject passing women to sexual harassment.

Uhrm, okay. What relevance has this to the point? Is it just whataboutism?

I'm sorry you chose to bring up an entirely unrelated protest by that logic and don't want to actually deal with me doing the same back to show my point to.

Kindly take your whatabbutism and apply it to yourself or actually come up with an answer.

Ditto.

See above

A "mindset"? Bollocks is it. You're just applying your own criteria so you can lump every random incident of nonsense together and blame a group for them. No association exists between this random letter-writer and the people turning out and calling themselves "Antifa". You've just decided to associate one with the other.

Says who? AntiFa isn't a group by a mindset so we keep being told so who is to say who can't and can't be members. AntiFA isn't a group and the only feature is to be Anti-fascist? Or is that not the case and it is a group with membership and more specific criteria?

Various yahoos write letters about armageddon and the end-times and fire and brimstone. Am I to assume they represent the protestant "mindset"?

No because Protestants have a specific group and structure lol. Hell they actually have church leaders and preachers and religious councils lol

What the hell does this have to do with anything? I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make by going on about how bad MS-13 is.

The point I was making is a lot of stuff gets spun and for some they've gone from reporting the news to making it.

Did you know that's who Trump was referencing with some of his comments? The comments you made reference to?

So yes it does have something to do with things as you were referencing some of his comments.

Why're you using "those standards"? You seem to be arguing against that standard, but I was never using it. So... why use it now?

It's the standard people in this thread have been pushing.

So if you're is not that then please feel free to clarify.

Ok, but if it's not freedom of speech that affords that platform, then this isn't an instance of freedom of speech being infringed, which was my point.

Are not the universities publicly funded at least in part?

Therefore they should be protecting freedom of speech.

If a group on campus invites a speaker then are they not entitled to have their speaker speak if they meet the required support levels to for the University to give them time on the platform?

The platform exists to give people a diversity of opinions and expose them to new ideas in theory anyway.

 

[Houseman]

But the problem is dishonesty within the police force. From training cops that every situation is a life or death situation that has gotten many an innocent civilian killed to frequently reported yet constantly ignored misconduct of police officers.

We just have one person on the Forensic side of things (Annie Dookhan) who's misconduct has led up to 20,000 cases being overturned due to a lack of true evidence and her false testimony.

That's one woman.

You have officers speaking up about how the quota system is created and what happens if you disobey. You have a metric ton of police officers being arrested for falsifying evidence that anyone can go through it themselves. You have ample reason to question cops. I know some people don't, but you really should.

And these are the people who got caught. Not every cop is a crook, but there are enough that one (if they truly wish to be impartial) will have to doubt them as much as they have to doubt the 'criminals'. The burden of evidence because now more pronounced due to the police's very own actions.

Okay. Are you saying that anti-police prejudice (or sentiment, if you'd rather), is justified? That it's okay?
If prejudice begets prejudice, how does one break the cycle?