Fair enough. I will say that I think you miss that people do not give the DOJ the regard you do. So if you believe in a skewed justice system the DOJ's ruling is not definitive proof of anything. Even if you do put stock in their ruling that only means they thought he was legally justified, not necessarily morally justified. Hmmm . . .
If you're point is getting attention, well done . . . sort of. You got mine anyway. But if your goal was to shame people and shed light upon their moral failures you haven't done that. If anything you've further entrenched them in their opinions. Cool, we agree there. I never thought Ferguson was a good case for the movement, but I think a grieving community deserves better than Oath Keepers and militarized police as a response. It's hard, in the midst of chaos, to say "I understand your grievances and that you have many legitimate grievances, but we need to look at cases individually." People are yelling, it's too loud to get out a nuanced response. You can only get a few words in edgewise "race-baiter" "Obama" "the Klan!" "black-on-black crime" "f the police" "step back! *fires tear gas*" etc. It's been fun. We could probably all do better though eh?
True, true. FWIW I think you're a pretty good Mediator of Meh too. I like Credo, but I think he can Mediator of Meh a little aggressively sometimes and closing the original thread here was a little fascist-y for our resident anarchist. Who else is a Mediator of Meh? I don't even know lol. All in all phatmass is a cool place and much better than lots of stuff on the internet. Maybe I'm just a little bitter because after 5 years of being here I haven't managed to ingratiate myself to the power players. Just like my real life lol. But yeah, y'all are alright in my book.
So I and all the other people you call out see people as cogs in the machine and not human individuals? How the hell do you know that? I mean you talk about people being on a "moral high horse" and you seem quite unaware that you're in the saddle as well. I could accuse you of rashly judging those whom disagree with you in this debate. What you fail to understand is that individuals seem to get lost because they merely launch these debates on wider issues, and as I've said before, people come into this thinking racism is not real and so "darren wilson probably did not act out of racism, and if he did he is an outlier," so the response to that is well "darren wilson joined an inherently racist occupation so it's entirely likely that he did act out of racism, whether he was conscious of it or not." You see that as horrible, horrible slander but both sides are making presumptions in favor and against someone whether it's the person who got shot or was doing the shooting. I don't think here was doing any character assassination, and if they were, believe me there's plenty of that on both sides. (i.e. Freddie Gray was a drug-dealer so he deserved to die, Eric Garner was a CRIMINAL sell tax free cigs so he deserved to die). In addition, and I want to make this very clear so I will bold it, even if someone is part of a racist organization and holds racist ideals that individual may not even be aware of it, in fact he may be a victim of it. That doesn't mean Darren Wilson, even if he was brainwashed to fear Black people, should be lynched, but we need to address that possibilty. Of course you'd view that as ruining his reputation. Again I don't see you pitching a fit about the reputation of the people actually killed in these scenarios, perhaps because you implicitly believe they must have deserved it. OR you are not addressing those who attack the dead because you're not confronted with people who do that here. Just as folks like me feel the need to compensate for those who think we're in a post-racial society, and prove that racism still exists every time these debates come up.
We'll see. The court of public opinion is NEVER a good place to be for ANYONE. Should we not talk about anyone on a public phorum? Oh bull****. the profession someone chooses says something about them. It is not the sum of their being, no one is saying it is, but you can glean something.
But you do have a point. We should be careful not to judge the hearts of others and perhaps we should pay more attention to the individuals involved in addition to the wider social phenomena, and make sure the actual people don't get lost in the debate. BUT you have couched this point with accusations of your own and outright DEMANDS that people answer to YOU. That's why people are so pissy. I should be more careful about how I talk about people. And how I judge them. It's a good point. But you've buried that valid point in your attitude and in your judgments of others.
Which is obviously an inferior way to think because you don't think that way. I'm losing a little bit of patience with your attitude. You come off as rather condescending and seemingly frustrated that not everyone thinks like you, with the implicit charge that we're obviously too feeble minded and susceptible to groupthink or other unrightthinks. You don't care about the experiences about others yet you expect your experiences should have weight in convincing people of their shame. You may be smarter than me or anyone else here but that doesn't automatically make you right and that doesn't mean you we should yield to your authority on how we should think. I really think Mr. Wilson will be fine. He has people in his corner and last I heard he crowdfunded over a half-a-million USD. Furthermore I don't think anyone here said anything slanderous, but I might have missed some things. I mean we were all engaging in guesswork and commenting on a public case. You're telling me you never try to get at the motives of people and don't assume the worst of people sometimes? I mean I don't think any of us can say we don't do that. And with how our media distributes information is a hot mess and you can't blame that on us either. We're only going on what we know but I don't remember anyone (on here) saying Darren Wilson is a racist, he should be hung, he'll never get a job in this town again!
So making partial judgements about people based on the life choices they make is prejudice now? Speaking of being unmoved by arguments . . .
Thanks Nihil, I read some and I'll try to read the rest later. I'm curious as to how a government becomes legitimate. I know it's an old libertarian trope but what is the precise difference between the mafia imposing protection fees upon businesses and the government imposing taxes? Is it their scope of power? Their openness with their power? The acquiescence of the majority? Does power=authority? Is ISIS therefore a legitimate government? (many violent terrorist groups provide healthcare, protection, education and other benefits to people that they decide not to maim and kill). However I think my question centers around what right a man has to the fruits of his labor, and whether the state can justly supercede these rights. Civilizations, including the great American Empire, has survived long stretches of time without an income tax, so it's not a given necessary evil. I was more interested in what the church had to say about that.
I just wish I could choose where 1/4 of my pathetic income went instead of feeding back into a corrupt system. :'(
Good post Peace. I'm glad you understand privilege and worked with brown people yaddyadda that's all well and good. Why does it matter if I think a cop is guilty? It's just what I think. It literally does not matter and has no effect on any actual outcome. The structural inequality does not care about a few thousand/million people whining on the internet. We're just talking, making guesses and assumptions. I don't think the DOJ gives one beaver dam about all of that. No institution does. I think you're blowing this way the hell out of proportion. Did anyone claim to actually know what happened that day? We're all just using the information we have, and yes you ARE allowed to factor in a history of police brutality against black people when you're trying to figure out what went on. It's part of the puzzle. I don't know anything about your man. I question anyone though who chooses an occupation that is inherently violent and that permits you to use violence to enforce stupid, stupid laws and one that shows a stunning level of hypocrisy when it comes to enforcing laws amongst the populace vs. enforcing laws amongst their own. I'm allowed to do that, too even if you don't like it. Of course I concede that any given police officer may start out with noble intentions (maintaining those intentions in that environment is another story, but I'm sure it's possible), but I'm allowed to have my suspicions. Doesn't mean I'm 100% sure of anything. I deal with probabilities. Almost nothing is certain. You have a horse in this race, I get it. But you should probably take it down a few notches if you want to call people out for being un-Christian. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Lilla, I doubt I will convince you of anything but I'll trade you one diatribe for another. Prejudice and bias goes both ways. I could accuse you of being biased in favor of the police, of the government etc and therefore more willing perhaps to turn a blind eye to the actual evil that they commit, and therefore willing to ignore the cries of a community of people (disenfranchised and disempowered as they are). I would say that's even more pernicious than what you're accusing others of. However, people are generally unwilling to confront their biases and see how they color the stances they take. We all have them anyway, and there are reasons, some legitimate and some not, that they exist. But I will confess I have a bias against the police. When stories like these break I typically predict/guess that that a cop is guilty (do you assume that they are not?), while I'm also open to the possibility that he or she is not. However, I also have little faith that our justice system shows parity enough to convict cops when they are actually guilty. I was SHOCKED when the 6 cops in Baltimore were in indicted. Let me explain the reason for my bias. I am not part of, but I try to listen to, the Black community. And what I hear from them is lots of pain, anger, and frustration from instances of racism from people and from police. I can either assume that they are being histrionic and overreacting OR I can assume that there are genuine reasons for feeling how they do. When one faces a system of habitual injustice and prejudice they are likely to develop an us vs. them mentality (can you blame them? I can't) so they MAY see racism when it genuinely isn't there in a particular instance, but I can understand the reaction and sensitivity whenever there is violence between races. I think the Michael Brown case was not a strategic case to advance the awareness of police brutality--too many unknowns, the incriminating security footage of Brown prior--but that alone should tell you something. The ensuing violence was a reaction. Was it reaction to one isolated case? No it was more like the straw that broke the camel's back. You know, speaking of being safe at night in your quiet room in your warm bed, I will say it's very EASY to say "now let's just all calm down and be rational about this," when your community is not bearing the brunt of injustice. We are not purely rational creatures when we are involved in conflict. (You even give way to emotional appeal in your op when detailing the trials and tribulations of your boyfriend). So when people, including myself and others on phatmass, appear to you to be "calling for blood" you understand it as us "having an axe to grind," whereas I see it as standing with a community that is oppressed and victimized. You know, it's not that it's fair for one innocent (which, I'm going to mince words and say that Brown's killer is not necessarily innocent, but the DOJ found him "not guilty" of a particular crime, in any case . . .) man be "lynched" to shed light on systematic racism it's when instances like these arise there are SWATHS of people who think we are living in a post-racial society and that there is no systematic issue of police brutality. To them, that the police did not act as a piece in a wider racialist system is a foregone conclusion because there IS no such thing as racism in the police force except for some few, isolated incidents. When people come in with that attitude it is very frustrating and that's part of the reason why people press the issue of systematic racism so much. )Let's not forget that hundreds of thousands of dollars IIRC were crowdfunded for Darren Wilson well before he was cleared and the KKK showed their implicit support of him). So when people are coming in with these assumptions it's not that I *know* this particular cop is guilty because he is white and the dead kid is black or that I *know* this particular cop is racist, it's that I KNOW there is an actual problem with racism and police brutality against black people in this country. I feel like I have to prove these things every time these debates come up (which is a fool's errand, I know) and I may use the particular incident as leverage in asserting my argument. Again, that doesn't mean I KNOW that particular cop is guilty. I'm aware how it may seem like that's the case. Do you see this distinction? Furthermore I have distrust for the cops because they have always had a sordid history with black people, from COINTELPRO and the war on drugs, to the hoards of killings and beatings captured on video today. I don't know how people can ignore these things. It's very aggravating. Do people really think cops are all unequicovally the "good guys." Take a look at some declassified documents or youtube vids today. To believe in the "good guy" croutons is insane? I also operate with the axiom that power corrupts and people tend to abuse power. Cops are given a huge amount of power. I have severe doubts that many people can handle that responsibly (think Stanford Prison experiments). All these things lend to my bias. That I admit, because I'm so "self-aware." Now, I probably wasted an hour of my saturday night for nothing, but that's nothing new for me. Take care.
Cool, fair enough. We're probably more on the same page than you think, maybe on the same chapter anyway. But I disagree with your last statement. Asking for things without giving anything really in return and needing so much from others while you're incapable of providing much for anyone else including yourself . . . feels really sucky. I guess it depends on the type of person.
I didn't make myself clear I guess. Someone asked why people still flock to our country if there is no opportunity. My point was that these "opportunities" that immigrant workers usually get (low paying jobs/poor working conditions/outright abuse) are for many people in the world better than what they currently have to deal with in their native countries. It's not proof enough to say "well so many immigrants are coming, so there MUST be opportunities." That's not necessarily the case. And I gave one reason why. Also people come here, I'm sure with dreams of freedom and wealth, but as we all know dreams don't always come true. Of course those things do not prove that there is no opportunity here. That was not the point of my post. My point was immigration proves nothing about actual opportunity being present here.
Furthermore, you personal experience is anecdotal, does not necessarily reflect wider phenomena, so pressing that as a point is not entirely convincing. I'm sure, even with your hard work-ethic, there have been people in life that had to take a flier on you somewhere, somehow. Have you considered that people aren't given a chance? That some people grow up in environments where developing a work ethic is hard because they are dealing with violence/prejudice/no community support/no visible opportunity? Maybe you emerged from one of these such environments and think "So if I can do it, anyone else should be able to," but that's just not the reality. Maybe you're special
Because some people don't see doing back-breaking work for under minimum wage as an opportunity while others do. If you are in a Mexican neighborhood that is terrorized by a drug cartel (thanks USA for the war on drugs!) then being a migrant farm worker seems a lot more appealing than living in an American neighborhood with a much higher standard of living. It's also easier to use immigrant workers and treat them however you desire because if they try to, I don't know, demand to be treated fairly, they can expect to see the INS.
Saying you are not against something but also aren't in favor of it, necessarily, could be seen as a dodge. But I thought the "har har har" made it evident I was mostly joking. Next time I will throw in a winky smiley at no extra charge.
Maybe I should have saved this thread when we get closer to election time, for the US of A.