Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Levelfive]

And the fact that filming isn't mutually exclusive to institutional reform.

Indeed, that's the point--what we have now is filming without reform.

- - - Updated - - -

It's one step in an issue that should be multifaceted in its approach; I'm not pretending that body cams are a one-step fix.

And maybe there's significantly better approaches, but I'm focusing on changes that could be made with minimal adjustments.

It's also very much not about preventing abuse, but just trying to ensure we can garner evidence to prosecute that abuse. Your article makes the point that surveillance doesn't actually reduce bad behaviour, but that's not what I think it would help with.

A much bigger component should be the ethical reforms I've discussed elsewhere; a duty to protect, a duty to to report malfeasance by colleagues, etc.

Agreed.

/10 char

[Edge-]

Police officer on your property and blocking your way? Honk them and they get out and point a gun at you..

Watch this video and tell me this guy isn’t anything but a thug.



And this officer is involved in other shooting instances

Man, props to that doctor for being so chill despite a cop sticking a fucking gun in his face.

Seriously, fuck that cop and fuck his buddies. Doctor has every right to be fuckin miffed at them after that behavior.

Aurora seems like it's got cops that are almost as bad as Buffalo's.

[Theodarzna]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/healt...ess/index.html

It's an interview with DeiAngelo, not an opinion piece.

And it also pretty extensively goes into her views and why she believes this. But sniping with a single sentence without any of that context makes it really easy to frame her as some random nutter and CNN as awful.

It's also dishonest as fuck, dude. If you wanna have a discussion on her views, discuss her views.

Alright, I shall take you up on that offer.

The issue with Robin DiAngelo, and indeed the whole pantheon of Human Resources Anti-Racism trainers is that its all a scam. The whole reason for her writing the book White Fragility is to justify her industry and grift. She creates these grand problems via establishing an essentialist worldview (Some categories are inherently racist and biased and this is a permanent almost spiritual corruption they all have) and the only solution she offers is lifelong anti-bias diversity training (offered by her and her friends at $20,000 per corporate session, how convenient!). Her book hilariously enough is an admission that her own HR Training seminars don't work because they make people uncomfortable and angry, and DiAngelo, being a bloodless ghoul who doesn't explain too well the CONTEXT of her series of anecdotes that prove "White Fragility" even exists. The context being mandatory Human Resources Training Seminars, where of course no sane person wants to open up and let some ghoul psychoanalyze them in front of their boss whom could have them fired or pour their intimate thoughts out to be put on a file by some corporate lackey whose only mission is to protect the boss. To paraphrase Matt Taibbi, Her work is the intellectual equivalent of the “ordeal by water” witchcraft trial in which if you float, you’re a witch if you drown you aren't guilty, and tragically this is orthodoxy across much of the Human Resources world.

As Matt Taibbi summarized the books central point well:

White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category.

(source)

More importantly, the problem of Racism according to these Corporate consultants is something that cannot ever be solved by material policy as Tim Wise scolded Bernie Sanders about during the campaign trail. Thus for the DiAngelo's, Crenshaws, Coates, and Wise's of the world, it is instead a spiritual corruption that more importantly needs people to shell out lots of money to a new priestly caste of Anti-Racism activists whose constant sinecures are a necessary thing for them to fight Racism, which DiAngelo lets slip is impossible to actually fight, only manage. How is it managed? By giving DiAngelo lots of money.

Also, there is a growing body of literature and research suggesting that the entire industry doesn't actually work and curbing racism and instead enhances it. Which is a fact Robin DiAngelo, indeed all the authors in this industry, admit to in their own books, that this stuff doesn't actually work. Much like any good grift, you have an invisible set of demons inside you, let us call them Thetans and only experts like DiAngelo, for sometimes thousands of dollars apiece can help you manage them, and if you cannot perceive your spiritual corruption, well that is just proof its there, double so if you are unwilling to confess to your spiritual pollution in front of the petty tyrants of HR who are recording all that you say at this mandatory training exercise and putting it on file to discipline you later, or you know straight fire you. Which is good news for them, because they've convinced people to keep giving them money to browbeat employees at various corporations and aide HR in its eternal quest to have ever more petty technicalities to discipline workers. No wonder then that Ibram Kendi wants a Federal Department of Anti-Racism, an HR Department for all, and importantly sinecures and secure work for Anti-Racism activists to monitor our thetans... I mean Racism.

Robin DiAngelo exists within an industry, she is a corporate consultant as is the entire pantheon of professional Anti-Racism activists. Her entire schtick, as is all of theirs really, is that racism is a personal, internal corruption that we are basically born with and need these experts to help manage and fight it for the rest of our lives. My critique of her ideas is that they are fraudulent and more importantly that they are entirely self-serving.

Again, closing with Taibbi:

One of the central tenets of DiAngelo’s book (and others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and can only be managed through constant, “lifelong” vigilance, much like the battle with addiction. A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency experts — in the fight against this disease, companies will need the help forever and ever.

(source)

[Elegiac]

Notice how there’s a whole lot of “talk shit about the author” rather than actually disputing whether or not White Fragility is a thing, lol.

It’s also amusing as hell because it tries to ignore that DiAngelo did not originate the concept, either. And using fucking Matt Taibbi as a source, to boot.

Reminder that Taibbi continues to claim the Russia investigation was a witch hunt and openly endorsed the No True Whistleblower argument.

[Endus]

Again, closing with Taibbi:

One of the central tenets of DiAngelo’s book (and others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and can only be managed through constant, “lifelong” vigilance, much like the battle with addiction. A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency experts — in the fight against this disease, companies will need the help forever and ever.

(source)

It's like crime, or ethics, or any other code of conduct. They exist because people will not naturally do the right thing every time, and need to have guidelines set out to define the limits they must stay within. Racism is just a component along those lines. Anyone thinking you can "fix" racism doesn't understand what racism is, and just wants those fighting for social justice to stop doing so, because they like the current levels on injustice how they are, thanks.

This is blatantly obvious to anyone approaching the issue with any honesty at all. Among whom I do not include Taibbi.

All you and Taibbi are doing is supporting and fostering racist prejudices as if they're acceptable and normal. You're being racist, yourself, in doing so. But I'm sure you'll complain that this is unfair, even though you won't have an argument to actually present.

[Kasierith]

It's like crime, or ethics, or any other code of conduct. They exist because people will not naturally do the right thing every time, and need to have guidelines set out to define the limits they must stay within. Racism is just a component along those lines. Anyone thinking you can "fix" racism doesn't understand what racism is, and just wants those fighting for social justice to stop doing so, because they like the current levels on injustice how they are, thanks.

This is blatantly obvious to anyone approaching the issue with any honesty at all. Among whom I do not include Taibbi.

All you and Taibbi are doing is supporting and fostering racist prejudices as if they're acceptable and normal. You're being racist, yourself, in doing so. But I'm sure you'll complain that this is unfair, even though you won't have an argument to actually present.

Being critical of a single book is not being critical of social justice in its entirety. I've perused it, and if you haven't read it yourself I can give a pretty brief summary. It is corporation style diversity training tailored towards risk aversion. Holding this book as a pillar for establishing peaceful cooperation with others of different races is like using a workplace conduct video on sexual harassment as a guideline for how to interact with people of the opposite gender. You can draw some insights, but identifying differences and how to politely navigate them only gets you so far.

[Theodarzna]

Being critical of a single book is not being critical of social justice in its entirety. I've perused it, and if you haven't read it yourself I can give a pretty brief summary. It is corporation style diversity training tailored towards risk aversion. Holding this book as a pillar for establishing peaceful cooperation with others of different races is like using a workplace conduct video on sexual harassment as a guideline for how to interact with people of the opposite gender. You can draw some insights, but identifying differences and how to politely navigate them only gets you so far.

I am not even convinced it helps navigate relations between two seemingly different people; since by the books own description, the training straight up doesn't work and just makes people more agitated and obsessed with peoples differences, and for the most part the books core claims are a self-serving justification for why Robin DiAngelo must continue to be given a sinecure to manage what is essentially a thetans. And by the way, if you deny being infected with Thetans you in fact have proven you have thetans and must pay DiAngelo to help you manage them.

[Endus]

Being critical of a single book is not being critical of social justice in its entirety. I've perused it, and if you haven't read it yourself I can give a pretty brief summary. It is corporation style diversity training tailored towards risk aversion. Holding this book as a pillar for establishing peaceful cooperation with others of different races is like using a workplace conduct video on sexual harassment as a guideline for how to interact with people of the opposite gender. You can draw some insights, but identifying differences and how to politely navigate them only gets you so far.

I mean, sure.

Diversity training won't make a racist employee not-racist.

Sexual harassment seminars won't educate misogynists into being not-misogynist.

What they do is provide those people with no possible defense for their conduct, by establishing clear rules, and then if they break those rules, they can be readily fired with cause and no potential grounds for any kind of wrongful dismissal suit.

That is the purpose. Not to "fix" racism; just to give it no uncertainty to hide behind, so that racists and sexists and other bigots can be summarily fired the moment they reveal their abusive viewpoints in the workplace, just for revealing those viewpoints.

I don't know where anyone got the idea that this would "end racism". That's never been the goal. The goal's always been to remove it from places where it can do harm. To marginalize them and keep them away from those they would otherwise make victims of.

And before anyone starts crying on their behalf; they're being judged for their own behaviour and beliefs, not through any kind of prejudice. These kinds of things are legitimate cause to dismiss an employee. Don't like that risk? Stop choosing to be a bigot, then. You can do that literally any time; nothing is forcing you to be that way. It's a choice you make every single day.

Maybe all this makes the bigots more angry and more willing to try and "fight back", and that's fine. Makes it easier to identify and remove them. Which, again, is the purpose. Not "fixing" them. That is not society's responsibility.

[Kasierith]

I mean, sure.

Diversity training won't make a racist employee not-racist.

Sexual harassment seminars won't educate misogynists into being not-misogynist.

What they do is provide those people with no possible defense for their conduct, by establishing clear rules, and then if they break those rules, they can be readily fired with cause and no potential grounds for any kind of wrongful dismissal suit.

That is the purpose. Not to "fix" racism; just to give it no uncertainty to hide behind, so that racists and sexists and other bigots can be summarily fired the moment they reveal their abusive viewpoints in the workplace, just for revealing those viewpoints.

I don't know where anyone got the idea that this would "end racism". That's never been the goal. The goal's always been to remove it from places where it can do harm. To marginalize them and keep them away from those they would otherwise make victims of.

And before anyone starts crying on their behalf; they're being judged for their own behaviour and beliefs, not through any kind of prejudice. These kinds of things are legitimate cause to dismiss an employee. Don't like that risk? Stop choosing to be a bigot, then. You can do that literally any time; nothing is forcing you to be that way. It's a choice you make every single day.

Maybe all this makes the bigots more angry and more willing to try and "fight back", and that's fine. Makes it easier to identify and remove them. Which, again, is the purpose. Not "fixing" them. That is not society's responsibility.

Thank you for your feedback on corporate risk aversion theory. Now that you've fully espoused your support and assured our beneficent overlords that you do not present a risk for a lawsuit, however... do you truly believe that this sort of mindset, focused to the extreme on possible risk and with every possible difference highlighted, actually supports collaboration with others on a human level?

The premise of the book essentially amounts to there is no reconcilable understanding possible by white people, that there is no possible meeting of the minds, and that the best white people can do is engage in a continuous cycle of checking their actions and behavior. That by being white, you are inherently a part of the problem by association regardless of independent actions on your part. Being cognizant of ways you can cause offense and discriminate against others, in ways that you were not previously aware of, is an important tool to have. But tying that with a mentality that undercuts cooperation and starts with the foundation of "if you're white, you're racist" pushes things in the exactly wrong direction.

I'll ask you directly, rather than infer the question. Have you read the book yourself?

[PickleballAce]

Police: 2 women hit by car on Seattle highway amid protest

Seattle is such a shithole. Something in the water there?

[Kasierith]

Police: 2 women hit by car on Seattle highway amid protest

Seattle is such a shithole. Something in the water there?

Link appears to be broken, I assume you are referring to this? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ghway-n1232907

edit: nevermind looks like it's working now. The video is absolutely horrifying.

[Elegiac]

Police: 2 women hit by car on Seattle highway amid protest

Seattle is such a shithole. Something in the water there?

Pfft, of course the driver was a business major.

And no, there are a variety of problems mostly to do with a) Seattle PD being a bunch of incompetent boobs, b) red states and counties dumping their homeless populations on us, and c) real estate, as always.

[Endus]

Thank you for your feedback on corporate risk aversion theory. Now that you've fully espoused your support and assured our beneficent overlords that you do not present a risk for a lawsuit, however... do you truly believe that this sort of mindset, focused to the extreme on possible risk and with every possible difference highlighted, actually supports collaboration with others on a human level?

If they're bigots?

I don't believe honest, decent, profitable collaboration is possible with bigots, because of their bigotry. It will always get in the way. Why should we be in any way concerned about collaborating with people who hold such abusive, prejudiced viewpoints? The best we can do is protect our staff and clients from them, by not consciously employing them.

I'll ask you directly, rather than infer the question. Have you read the book yourself?

No, but I was responding to positions as posted here in the forums. Do their words not stand and fall on their own merits (or lack thereof)?

[Kasierith]

If they're bigots?

I don't believe honest, decent, profitable collaboration is possible with bigots, because of their bigotry. It will always get in the way. Why should we be in any way concerned about collaborating with people who hold such abusive, prejudiced viewpoints? The best we can do is protect our staff and clients from them, by not consciously employing them.

If? The position of the book in question is that all white people are bigots, by virtue of their skin tone. Not by any specific actions they have or have not taken. When you threw your hat into the fight, that's the side you chose to come down alongside.

If you believe that I am hyperbolizing the positions contained within the book, I invite you to read it yourself.

No, but I was responding to positions as posted here in the forums. Do their words not stand and fall on their own merits (or lack thereof)?

Sure, and as I just said I have no problem whatsoever with adding tools to our arsenal to engage in self reflection and understand how our biases unknowingly influence our behavior. But the context of the post you were refuting, was discussing the book itself. The issue we have is not with certain principles, but the foundation upon which the book bases them.

I mean, you're calling someone a racist for disagreeing with the premises put forward by the book, and are now saying that the book is irrelevant. This is simply disingenuous.

[Themius]

If? The position of the book in question is that all white people are bigots, by virtue of their skin tone. Not by any specific actions they have or have not taken. When you threw your hat into the fight, that's the side you chose to come down alongside.

If you believe that I am hyperbolizing the positions contained within the book, I invite you to read it yourself.



Sure, and as I just said I have no problem whatsoever with adding tools to our arsenal to engage in self reflection and understand how our biases unknowingly influence our behavior. But the context of the post you were refuting, was discussing the book itself. The issue we have is not with certain principles, but the foundation upon which the book bases them.

I mean, you're calling someone a racist for disagreeing with the premises put forward by the book, and are now saying that the book is irrelevant. This is simply disingenuous.

The premise of the book essentially amounts to there is no reconcilable understanding possible by white people, that there is no possible meeting of the minds, and that the best white people can do is engage in a continuous cycle of checking their actions and behavior. That by being white, you are inherently a part of the problem by association regardless of independent actions on your part.

Odd your own summary doesn't make that determination.

Instead your own summary seems to say the book says white people must constantly check themselves when engaging, and that they are part of the problem, inherently.

That isn't saying all white people are bigots, that instead is saying all white people (or at least majority or most) have a problem when it comes to race, as they can often be ignorant of issues as they do not affect them, and therefore do not see what the problem is.

For instance, it took the death of George Floyd for white people to think "maybe the confederate flag on the Mississippi flag is bad" yet just one year ago a majority wanted to keep it.

Unless there is some major event, it seems white masses are completely content, with remaining content and ignoring the larger issues around the country if they themselves are not affected by them.

This doesn't say all white people are bigots, instead says most are ignorant of the situation around them concerning non-white people. And frankly, with the way education works, and the sanitised history that is taught it is very easy for many white people to be completely lost when confronted with something that is racist but they never thought was racist.

When white people confronted become defensive... well.. they are now part of the problem, and we see it play out here all the time.

[Kasierith]

Odd your own summary doesn't make that determination.

Instead your own summary seems to say the book says white people must constantly check themselves when engaging, and that they are part of the problem, inherently.

Both statements being truthful for arguments presented in the book, and not mutually exclusive, yes.

That isn't saying all white people are bigots, that instead is saying all white people (or at least majority or most) have a problem when it comes to race, as they can often be ignorant of issues as they do not affect them, and therefore do not see what the problem is.

And this is an argument that I am in full agreement on. Keep in mind, I come from a country where there are barely any people of color period, anywhere. My personal experience is having to build all of this up from scratch.

For instance, it took the death of George Floyd for white people to think "maybe the confederate flag on the Mississippi flag is bad" yet just one year ago a majority wanted to keep it.

Unless there is some major event, it seems white masses are completely content, with remaining content and ignoring the larger issues around the country if they themselves are not affected by them.

This is true of many things. I've never seen you talking about human trafficking affecting thousands of women if not more every year through Central Asia. Does this mean that you are uncaring about the plight of women in these situations? Is this an expression of male privilege on your part?

I am happy that it has brought attention on a community level as to the problems present within society, and that things are moving in the right direction. But holding people in Oregon accountable for what happens in Mississippi just.. doesn't follow for me, sorry.

This doesn't say all white people are bigots, instead says most are ignorant of the situation around them concerning non-white people. And frankly, with the way education works, and the sanitised history that is taught it is very easy for many white people to be completely lost when confronted with something that is racist but they never thought was racist.

When white people confronted become defensive... well.. they are now part of the problem, and we see it play out here all the time.

Which is a perfectly fine position to hold, and I agree with it. Unfortunately it veers well away from the literary work in question. It is moderate in comparison to the book.

(also just to be nitpicky White Fragility has numerous factually incorrect history tidbits even with things as straightforward as dates and places so the sanitized history angle isn't exactly on solid ground here)

[Theodarzna]

I mean, you're calling someone a racist for disagreeing with the premises put forward by the book, and are now saying that the book is irrelevant. This is simply disingenuous.

I mean it seems from what is written that he or she basically agree's with my take on Robin DiAngelo's book.

1) That it doesn't fight Racism. Its purpose isn't actually doing anything about ending racism or really even being Anti-Racist.
2) That it's just a tool for HR Departments to increase the number of technicalities to fire and or discipline non-contract labour. Essentially it serves Capital.

Maybe all that is left is an acknowledgement that the way Robin DiAngelo and by extension Coates, Kendi, Crenshaw, Wise and others frame and handle "Anti-Racism" essentially isn't about solving it either, it is about offering themselves up as self-help guru's or Racism Shamans who can, for a generous payment of course, can rid ourselves... MOMENTARILY.... of our thetans... I mean Racism.

Nobody asks about the basic premise of DiAngelo's book is that racism can only be managed, and you must now hire these people to help manage and discipline your multi-ethnic workforce, thus offering salaries and sinecures for everyone who majored in the popularly named "Grievance Studies". Also as Wise let slip, this group really doesn't believe in the efficacy of dealing with bigotry in a way that might not require corporations to hire them to fight the forever war on the spiritual playing field of people intimate thoughts or whatever.

[Elegiac]

I mean it seems from what is written that he or she basically agree's with my take on Robin DiAngelo's book.

1) That it doesn't fight Racism. Its purpose isn't actually doing anything about ending racism or really even being Anti-Racist.
2) That it's just a tool for HR Departments to increase the number of technicalities to fire and or discipline non-contract labour. Essentially it serves Capital.

Maybe all that is left is an acknowledgement that the way Robin DiAngelo and by extension Coates, Kendi, Crenshaw, Wise and others frame and handle "Anti-Racism" essentially isn't about solving it either, it is about offering themselves up as self-help guru's or Racism Shamans who can, for a generous payment of course, can rid ourselves... MOMENTARILY.... of our thetans... I mean Racism.

Nobody asks about the basic premise of DiAngelo's book is that racism can only be managed, and you must now hire these people to help manage and discipline your multi-ethnic workforce, thus offering salaries and sinecures for everyone who majored in the popularly named "Grievance Studies". Also as Wise let slip, this group really doesn't believe in the efficacy of dealing with bigotry in a way that might not require corporations to hire them to fight the forever war on the spiritual playing field of people intimate thoughts or whatever.

Probably for the same reason serious people don't generally say "we should be questioning the basic premise that pollution and carbon emissions can be managed because it just so happens to require climate experts, because that basic premise is being pushed by climate experts as part of the International Conspiracy of Underground Weathermen to enrich themselves".

Because it's conspiracy theory level garbage being pushed by people whose chief interest is denying that the problem exists for whatever reason. And you and Taibbi have the gall to bang on about "Russiagate".

[Themius]

This is true of many things. I've never seen you talking about human trafficking affecting thousands of women if not more every year through Central Asia. Does this mean that you are uncaring about the plight of women in these situations? Is this an expression of male privilege on your part?

I am happy that it has brought attention on a community level as to the problems present within society, and that things are moving in the right direction. But holding people in Oregon accountable for what happens in Mississippi just.. doesn't follow for me, sorry.

I actually have spoken about human trafficking in Asia, specifically among Filipino women.

The question truly should be "if the topic is brought up will I dismiss it if I am ignorant of it"

All too often when something is said to be racist, it is easy for white people not directly affected by it to say "what's racist?" and claim the other is just blowing things out of proportion. The defensiveness about something is the problem, not the ignorance of it.

For non-whites in America it seems easier for them to readily accept something they didn't think was racist could be racist.

[Kasierith]

I actually have spoken about human trafficking in Asia, specifically among Filipino women.

The question truly should be "if the topic is brought up will I dismiss it if I am ignorant of it"

All too often when something is said to be racist, it is easy for white people not directly affected by it to say "what's racist?" and claim the other is just blowing things out of proportion. The defensiveness about something is the problem, not the ignorance of it.

For non-whites in America it seems easier for them to readily accept something they didn't think was racist could be racist.

Ah, but this is kind of the point of impasse for me. If you told me that Mississippi has held onto their flag and its racist roots for too long and should be changed, I would say "I agree." But.. then what? I don't live in Mississippi. I don't know anyone there who i can convince. I could advocate, but while I am an advocate they tend to be in my own state with its own problems, in relation to education and healthcare, and by donating both my time and money to services in my community.. I don't have the energy or resources to fight other battles.

Yet, the book claims that I am white, and as part of my racial group I am associated with racists in Mississippi. That my claims to be individual of their actions, and in the resolution to address them, is an example of white fragility and a facetious attempt to establish an unracialized identity.

So tell me. The problem exists. I acknowledge it exists and it is a sign of systemic racism. It looks like they finally agreed to change it a few hours ago, so this is now theoretical, but lets turn the clock back half a day. What exactly do you expect me to do about it?