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

[Edge-]

Until then, it should not be taken as anything else than posturing. The onus to proove that it's more than posturing is on them, it is not on us to assume that they intend to do more than posturing.

I mean, not really. Yeah, the Bill is gonna get stopped because McConnell, but their votes on it are still a matter of public record (these bills aren't getting voice votes), so they can campaign on their support of this legislation. And, in contrast, their opponents can campaign against them based off of the House legislation they voted for over the past 2 years, including this one.

So no, you're still wrong. They still have to win re-election in the upcoming election, so this isn't just performative political art without any consequences. This is a signal to their bases of where their priorities lie, and if they don't vote for this again if/when the Democrats take back the Senate, their bases will hold it against them and you can bet they'll get primary challenges from other Democrats.

As the saying goes: "The proof is in the pudding."

It is, the problem is that you don't seem to recognize the pudding for what it is. You're expecting tapioca pudding but instead got chocolate pudding and are refusing to admit it's pudding.

[Jester Joe]

They also purposely ignore the fact that the Democratic Party has dramatically changed its makeup since they last time they held all branches of government.

They deny this change, mostly since they're conservative kids that backed Ron Paul until a few years ago. Their understanding of US politics calcified long ago.
They changed only slightly. Instead of just wanting legal weed, now they also want subsidizes healthcare.


Mostly to have more money to spend on weed. Since they aged out of the parent's coverage.

Well, admittedly that dives further into the knowledge I have of the political party also so I can't say much on that front, but I am in the process of trying to learn more overall after seeing how trying to avoid politics ends up.
Shame on me, I know.

On one hand, I understand that it's important to see the history of how a topic is handled by parties but to ignore context (Like in this case, blaming the Democrats for being blocked out of doing anything) seems baseless to me. That's also just on the surface, so to dive down further and see how one party has also shifted overall just shows that it's even more important to be sure to take in more than just the history.

It's less about catering and more about working with them.
Politics...compromise.
When one side refuses to budge you get nothing.
Both sides know how to play to the optics.
it's a "win" to their respective constituents.

In this specific case, Trump has been an extremely active voice against doing anything to the police. He alone forces a bill to have to go back to the House/Senate to earn the 2/3rds vote.

Which it already would fail in the House alone with the current bill, for the record.

You shouldn't give them credit until they'll actually pass these sort of bills when they do hold the Senate and do hold the power to push them through.

Until then, it should not be taken as anything else than posturing. The onus to proove that it's more than posturing is on them, it is not on us to assume that they intend to do more than posturing.

As the saying goes: "The proof is in the pudding."

You don't have to "give credit" to not blame the party.

They did take action to try. To claim they did nothing is flat out false, no matter what way you want to spin it.

[PosPosPos]

In this specific case, Trump has been an extremely active voice against doing anything to the police. He alone forces a bill to have to go back to the House/Senate to earn the 2/3rds vote.

Which it already would fail in the House alone with the current bill, for the record.

I feel like the fencesitters screaming "well the democrats refuse to compromise with republicans" must have all been collectively under coma for the past decade or so to make such a claim as out-of-touch of reality as that.

[PosPosPos]

Nobody should compromise with republicans....... republicans are extremists and fascists at this moment in time in US politics.
But giving democrats credit for posturing doesn't seem wise either. People are free of course to spread their credit and trust wherever they want, but I won't.

I'll be happy once meaningful change happens, not when meaningful change has only been promised yet. It's up to Democrat leadership to make their promises whole, instead of continuing a track record of leaving them empty.

So you are asking Democrats break the law in order to institute real change, or you aren't going to be satisfied.

[PosPosPos]

I've not ever known democrat politicians to be that courageous. No, I ask that they make their promises whole.
Until then I'll see passing grand bills in the House as little else than posturing and pulling the wool over voter's eyes, as it's exactly the same behavior opposition parties show in every modern nation.

Are you content with empty promises?
Or will you be content when measures will finally have been taken to thoroughly reform the police and when black people no longer get murdered?

Their promises are made with the expectation they are in a position of sufficient power, which is exactly why they need enough votes in order for them to push the changes you demand as a supermajority. Which you aren't giving, yet demand a miracle to happen.

[Milchshake]

Dont even have to go back decades to expose the fence sitters.

Just a few months when the Dems passed the Cares act, they pulled the same schtick.

The cosplay leftists of MMO-C got outflanked by moderate Dems like Bennet. Who pushed for the extra unemployment benefits.

The cosplay leftist will get exposed <again> in a few weeks when those benefits run out.

[PosPosPos]

You are also free to give them credit for something they haven't done yet.
But I won't.

I won't give them credit for something they haven't done yet, but I also won't assign blame to them just because they do not have sufficient power to work on their promises, the latter of which is what you are doing here.

[Felya]

Because as far as i see people defending themselves from accusations is not part of DiAngelo playbook. There would be no need to go into subconsciousness if conscious reflection would be sufficient.

How is that not allowed? WTF?

[Ivanstone]

Regarding Breonna Taylor's murder:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/5382035002/

"Lawyers for Taylor's family allege in court documents filed Sunday that a police squad — named Place-Based Investigations — had "deliberately misled" narcotics detectives to target a home on Elliott Avenue, leading them to believe they were after some of the city's largest violent crime and drug rings."

[Felya]

Political theater. Sign a bill safely knowing it won't go anywhere. Were they serious this bill would still be getting hashed out.
Democrats are playing games with time.

It’s Democrats not doing anything, while showing them doing exactly what was asked, is political theater? The only way it’s not, is if they still were just talking about it? That doesn’t make any sense...

[Jester Joe]

Up until now the only thing they did is posturing. I'll give them credit for posturing and using a common tactic of voter deception.

You go tell the next few black men, women or children that get shot: "At least the Democratic Party tried!" and see how happy they'll be with it.

And that's what I referred to as basically gaslighting at that point.

It's not really a form of debating the point or arguing. You made a claim-

Instead of the usual Pelosi bullshit: "Let's remove some confederate statues and name a street after BLM!"

was given proof them making an effort to do more.

And now you're rolling back saying "They didn't do anything, and they knew they weren't!" while making some appeal to emotion that is still ignoring the reason why the bill isn't going anywhere.

Because of the Republican party blocking it.

I feel like the fencesitters screaming "well the democrats refuse to compromise with republicans" must have all been collectively under coma for the past decade or so to make such a claim as out-of-touch of reality as that.

Like I admitted earlier, I've never dived into politics debates much because I knew it would cause me a headache but I've recently realized that isn't the way to go about this.

But even as someone who's tried to avoid it, I think it's pretty clear to see that things are past attempting to compromise because that hasn't gone anywhere. At this point, it's more willfully ignoring that.

[PosPosPos]

it's more willfully ignoring that.

It's not just wilful ignorance, it's concern trolling. The former is just one symptom out of the whole disease in the latter.

[Felya]

Little speak of defunding and focus on community police

Indeed, because it’s not supported by democrats.

No mention of de-militarization

https://judiciary.house.gov/uploaded...ct_of_2020.pdf
Sec. 365. Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act.

No mention of cracking down on police unions

What do you mean by cracking down? Just about every single part of the bill addresses the issue with unions. What issue is it missing?

And then ofcourse the obvious one, the posturing. I'd believe them if they pushed this bill knowing it would also get Senate support. Pushing bills as some sort of symbolic gesture or virtue signaling because you know it's going to get blocked in the Senate is a form of structural Democrat racism.

That’s the only thing democrats can do. What the fuck do you think they should be doing? Telling people to vote in more democrats so this can pass?

- - - Updated - - -

They're welcome to my vote to try and make their promises whole, although I'm already well prepared to be utterly disappointed, but that won't be any different from the last few times we voted for them as they promised "change" and "hope" (see my signature).

What do you mean we voted? What the fuck are you trying to pull?

You are also free to give them credit for something they haven't done yet.
But I won't.

They literally did it... in fact, they did every single thing they promised, every time you voted for them. 100% success rate...

- - - Updated - - -

Up until now the only thing they did is posturing. I'll give them credit for posturing and using a common tactic of voter deception.

You go tell the next few black men, women or children that get shot: "At least the Democratic Party tried!" and see how happy they'll be with it.

No, this shit you are doing is posturing:

Instead of the usual Pelosi bullshit: "Let's remove some confederate statues and name a street after BLM!"

- - - Updated - - -

It's not just wilful ignorance, it's concern trolling. The former is just one symptom out of the whole disease in the latter.

Reactionary politics... even willful ignorance doesn’t have a way to lie about who you are, because that implies awareness, instead of ignorance. But, that is exactly what a reactionary would have to do, when they react to their argument losing value without the deception.

[Kasierith]

How is that not allowed? WTF?

The entire concept of white fragility is that white people collectively bristle and deny claims of being racist despite systemic racism being a thing. And that being defensive about it indicates that one is not engaging in self reflection for the societal issues at play.

[Shalcker]

If someone accuses you of being racist, and your immediate and only thought is "how dare you accuse me of such a thing", you're acting defensively, rather than trying to understand and self-reflect. You're refusing conscious self-reflection.

No, denial is part of normal reflection process as long as given accusation is considered offensive or goes against held beliefs.

You look for counter-arguments and weight them against given accusation. It is possible to (at least partially) agree to accusation and adjust in the end despite starting from defensive point as long as argument is sound.

Given usual environments where this kind of accusation arises, alternatives to "actually i am racist and just didn't know it" do often have fairly high default weight.

And DiAnglelo book is treatise on how she fails to convince people, so it really doesn't work as far as changing people is concerned. It's self-flagellation manual for believers of white guilt.

The reasonable response is something like "could you explain that? I honestly don't see it and I'm worried there may be a blind spot in my thinking that I am unaware of."

The unwillingness to engage in the latter, that "conscious self-reflection" you hand-waved off, and reacting defensively instead, that's "white fragility".

The problem is, you need plenty of preconditions for this to actually work. To get people into learning mindset rather then "power/pity plays" or "office politics".

And all those preconditions are named as essence of "white fragility".

Plus, she argues "Racism is the norm rather than an aberration."; thus everyone is accused by default.

And the only way to improve is to be given feedback about it all the time (be shown how racist you are all the time) - and accept it at face value. Which is, again, impossible without plenty of preconditions that generally guard against abuse of such powers. Unless you're into cults.

And frankly, it's like all the homophobes who rail against gay rights and then get caught blowing a male hooker in a gas station. They're reacting defensively and hostile to the concept because that hostility is meant to drive away scrutiny, which would reveal that they themselves are exactly what they're railing against. And they know it, at some level. If you didn't, you'd react with confusion, not anger.

That also sounds defensive to me.

[Endus]

No, denial is part of normal reflection process as long as given accusation is considered offensive or goes against held beliefs.

It's a refusal of self-reflection. Not a part of such. It's a statement that the opinion you've been confronted with is wrong and yours is right, without bothering to look at the argument for its merit.

You look for counter-arguments and weight them against given accusation.

It is fundamentally not possible to do this until after you have engaged in self-reflection to determine if the accusation had merit. You have literally zero grounds to analyze the accusation for merit, because you have not considered that merit, by your own description.

It is possible to (at least partially) agree to accusation and adjust in the end despite starting from defensive point as long as argument is sound.

To repeat; no. A defensive stance refuses this. You could engage in self-reflection and determine that the accusation has no merit, and then engage in a dialogue to clear up whatever miscommunication led to that. But you won't ever get there if your first reaction is defensive.

And DiAnglelo book is treatise on how she fails to convince people, so it really doesn't work as far as changing people is concerned. It's self-flagellation manual for believers of white guilt.

Seriously, not what she's saying, that I have seen. Because diversity movements aren't actually, about teaching racists to not be racist.

That's a weird-ass concept that people came up with, and I really don't know whose ass you pulled it out of.

Diversity training is about removing racists from positions of power and authority. They set clear guidelines, and if you breach those guidelines and expose yourself as racist by doing so, you have provided concrete and incontrovertible grounds to be removed from your employment position, losing whatever authority and power you might have had. Even if that "power" was just "being a shitty person to customers at the McDonalds you're a cashier at".

That is how diversity training succeeds. It isn't meant to "fix" racists. They've chosen to be abusive assholes and they don't care what the facts are; there is no argument you could ever present them with that would ever make them say "oh, being an asshole is bad? Gee willikers, I just didn't know!" That's fucking stupid, and I'll thank you to stop pretending everyone else is stupid enough to have ever thought that was the goal.

The problem is, you need plenty of preconditions for this to actually work. To get people into learning mindset rather then "power/pity plays" or "office politics".

And all those preconditions are named as essence of "white fragility".

Again, no. The goal is not to educate Racist Andy into learning about why racism is bad.

It's to set ground rules so you can fire Racist Andy so he no longer presents a problem for your company. He can fuck off and go be racist somewhere else.

Plus, she argues "Racism is the norm rather than an aberration."; thus everyone is accused by default.

Try reading your own source. It pretty thoroughly argues against basically everything you've tried to claim, here. Making the point that the goal cannot be to reform "bad individuals", but to create structures free of racism, for instance.

And the only way to improve is to be given feedback about it all the time (be shown how racist you are all the time) - and accept it at face value. Which is, again, impossible without plenty of preconditions that generally guard against abuse of such powers. Unless you're into cults.

Or, y'know, not being a fragile snowflake and accepting that maybe you've got blind spots and you can't work past those blind spots unless they're pointed out to you first.

Literally her point.

You're just lying about basic shit in the source material you yourself linked. You're exactly the kind of person she's talking about; that you're so threatened by the possibility that you might be hurting others subconsciously that you'll lash out and hurt them actively for daring to call out your behaviour to your face.

That's dumb. Maybe stop doing that?

[The Emperor]

Are the democrats and our liberal friends still praising the "martyr" George Floyd? I mean this man was so pure, like an angel's tear.. Oh no, he was a meth head with a pretty regular criminal record persecuted like every two years, on his way to DUI, endangering and possibly maiming/killing more people. What a hero of the people, ladies and gentlmen!

[Felya]

Are the democrats and our liberal friends still praising the "martyr" George Floyd? I mean this man was so pure, like an angel's tear.. Oh no, he was a meth head with a pretty regular criminal record persecuted like every two years, on his way to DUI, endangering and possibly maiming/killing more people. What a hero of the people, ladies and gentlmen!

Are you suggesting police be Judge Dredd as an individual, conservative or Trump supporter?

Edit: I just want to make sure I attribute asinine hyperbole to the right person or group. In case I’m questioned why I generalize, I’d point at you as the authority representing said group.

[Edge-]

Are the democrats and our liberal friends still praising the "martyr" George Floyd? I mean this man was so pure, like an angel's tear.. Oh no, he was a meth head with a pretty regular criminal record persecuted like every two years, on his way to DUI, endangering and possibly maiming/killing more people. What a hero of the people, ladies and gentlmen!

“We didn’t choose him! You did,” he said. “They killed him and that wasn’t right, so he’s the guy. We’re not desperate for heroes in the black community. [Anyone] that survives this nightmare is my g-------- hero.”

Nobody Said George Floyd Was a Martyr or a Hero

This is a bad-faith argument.

[Themius]

Are the democrats and our liberal friends still praising the "martyr" George Floyd? I mean this man was so pure, like an angel's tear.. Oh no, he was a meth head with a pretty regular criminal record persecuted like every two years, on his way to DUI, endangering and possibly maiming/killing more people. What a hero of the people, ladies and gentlmen!

After committing crimes 13 years ago he led a life after that was on the straight and narrow and tried to better his community.

That's a man pulling himself up by his bootstraps, why don't you conservatives like that? Oh wait... wrong colour isn't he?