No one thinks [rioting]'s a "good thing". However, it's an understandable thing, a thing we can empathize with.
Completely disagree.
As a person who has small business owning friends and relatives (a tea shop, a yoga studio, a dojo, a comic book store, a dentistry, a dog grooming shop, a dance studio), I know that a riot affecting their business would wipe them out.
On average, it took each of them about 3 years of living in the poor house, working crazy hours, pouring all their savings into their business, before the business finally became profitable and self sufficient. A riot at their business, and they'd basically be starting over from scratch. In fact, if I knew a riot would happen at a friend's business, I'd mimic the Korean community during the 1992 LA riots.
So no, I will never understand, nor ever empathize with rioters.
Of course you don't understand. You just spent your entire post framing it from your point of view. You didn't even attempt to see it from their point of view.
That's, like, what empathy is.
The last 6 pages of this thread are the following exchange:
A: Rioting is bad. I have no empathy for people who riot, because they hurt small businesses.
B: I agree that harming innocent people is a bad thing, and that riots have negative effects. However, if people in power want to prevent rioting, they simply need to give the people of Ferguson an avenue of justice.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying the people who would riot have no other options at this point because they've all been taken away. If you give them options, there's no rioting.
A: They have other avenues! They can protest peacefully!
B: They have been doing that. If it doesn't give them results in the form of justice for the killing of Michael Brown, it proves that their peaceful protests amounted to nothing, which would mean they have no options left and they live under an oppressive regime that is not interested in their well-being, and since peaceful protesting doesn't work... riots.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying these people have done everything they can to not riot up until this point, and if they get pushed into rioting, it'll be because the people in power have backed them into a corner.
A: Rioting is bad, though.
B:
I think that I can reply to everything by replying to this post, but if someone wants me to respond to a specific point from an earlier post, I will if you @ me.
My position is very simple:
1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.
There is a critical distinction between what a person CAN do, and what a person can be REASONABLY EXPECTED to do.
Let's say I'm a destitute Somalian. I have a spouse and child and we're starving to death. I could become a pirate in hopes that I make enough money to feed my family, even though doing so will likely require killing more than three people. I could also do nothing and wait until we starve, or I could hang myself so there's a little more food to go around for the others I care about.
Depending on your philosophical bent, there are a number of moral arguments you could use to describe the latter two possibilities as more morally acceptable than the first, in the abstract. But you can never REASONABLY EXPECT another person to take those options. Humans are ultimately self-interested animals. You can never expect a person to calmly accept a scenario that results in loss of life, libery, or the capacity to pursue happiness for themselves or their loved ones. In desperate times, people do not sit around doing utilitarian calculus; they act with desperation to try and preserve what is most dear to them. And it turns out that human dignity is pretty dear to people!
I have no problem with the Somalian becoming a pirate. That is totally different than rioting though. His choice to be a pirate is more like the choice to attack the police. It is directly related. Rioting would be more like saying "My family is starving, so I will go on a random killing spree."
The pirate analogy fails hard, since they're attacking innocents, which you've been going on about for pages.
Yes, but he isn't doing it randomly. He is doing it towards the goal of saving his family, not expressing an outburst of emotion by visiting random violence on people. It is a bad thing to be a pirate. It is a bad thing to attack the police of Ferguson. But I can understand why someone would not both. Very different from translating emotion into random violence.
Are you fucking kidding me? The reason people would take violent action against the police are because the officers are killing their friends, family, and community members.
Your lack of perspective on this topic is really, really amazing.
IF you really want to talk perspective you have to realize that, in high crime areas, its community members killing community members at a much higher rate than the police. I never see anyone rioting over that.
No one thinks [rioting]'s a "good thing". However, it's an understandable thing, a thing we can empathize with.
Completely disagree.
As a person who has small business owning friends and relatives (a tea shop, a yoga studio, a dojo, a comic book store, a dentistry, a dog grooming shop, a dance studio), I know that a riot affecting their business would wipe them out.
On average, it took each of them about 3 years of living in the poor house, working crazy hours, pouring all their savings into their business, before the business finally became profitable and self sufficient. A riot at their business, and they'd basically be starting over from scratch. In fact, if I knew a riot would happen at a friend's business, I'd mimic the Korean community during the 1992 LA riots.
So no, I will never understand, nor ever empathize with rioters.
Of course you don't understand. You just spent your entire post framing it from your point of view. You didn't even attempt to see it from their point of view.
That's, like, what empathy is.
The last 6 pages of this thread are the following exchange:
A: Rioting is bad. I have no empathy for people who riot, because they hurt small businesses.
B: I agree that harming innocent people is a bad thing, and that riots have negative effects. However, if people in power want to prevent rioting, they simply need to give the people of Ferguson an avenue of justice.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying the people who would riot have no other options at this point because they've all been taken away. If you give them options, there's no rioting.
A: They have other avenues! They can protest peacefully!
B: They have been doing that. If it doesn't give them results in the form of justice for the killing of Michael Brown, it proves that their peaceful protests amounted to nothing, which would mean they have no options left and they live under an oppressive regime that is not interested in their well-being, and since peaceful protesting doesn't work... riots.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying these people have done everything they can to not riot up until this point, and if they get pushed into rioting, it'll be because the people in power have backed them into a corner.
A: Rioting is bad, though.
B:
I think that I can reply to everything by replying to this post, but if someone wants me to respond to a specific point from an earlier post, I will if you @ me.
My position is very simple:
1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.
There is a critical distinction between what a person CAN do, and what a person can be REASONABLY EXPECTED to do.
Let's say I'm a destitute Somalian. I have a spouse and child and we're starving to death. I could become a pirate in hopes that I make enough money to feed my family, even though doing so will likely require killing more than three people. I could also do nothing and wait until we starve, or I could hang myself so there's a little more food to go around for the others I care about.
Depending on your philosophical bent, there are a number of moral arguments you could use to describe the latter two possibilities as more morally acceptable than the first, in the abstract. But you can never REASONABLY EXPECT another person to take those options. Humans are ultimately self-interested animals. You can never expect a person to calmly accept a scenario that results in loss of life, libery, or the capacity to pursue happiness for themselves or their loved ones. In desperate times, people do not sit around doing utilitarian calculus; they act with desperation to try and preserve what is most dear to them. And it turns out that human dignity is pretty dear to people!
I have no problem with the Somalian becoming a pirate. That is totally different than rioting though. His choice to be a pirate is more like the choice to attack the police. It is directly related. Rioting would be more like saying "My family is starving, so I will go on a random killing spree."
The pirate analogy fails hard, since they're attacking innocents, which you've been going on about for pages.
Yes, but he isn't doing it randomly. He is doing it towards the goal of saving his family, not expressing an outburst of emotion by visiting random violence on people. It is a bad thing to be a pirate. It is a bad thing to attack the police of Ferguson. But I can understand why someone would not both. Very different from translating emotion into random violence.
Are you fucking kidding me? The reason people would take violent action against the police are because the officers are killing their friends, family, and community members.
Your lack of perspective on this topic is really, really amazing.
IF you really want to talk perspective you have to realize that, in high crime areas, its community members killing community members at a much higher rate than the police. I never see anyone rioting over that.
Presumably those people suffer negative consequences if caught.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge critic of police myself. You are also correct that its almost impossible to hold an officer accountable for even the most obvious offenses. Shit needs fixin'. I just dont want people to forget that there is a negative feedback loop in high crime communities. The under class are setup to fail, this leads to crime, this leads to a terrible job for policemen, this leads to them distrusting and fearing the public, this leads to ...well you see where we are going. I think Darren Wilson should be in jail right now, but even proper consequences for the police is not going to stop the cycle of violence.
I don't even know that Darren Wilson should be in jail.
The evidence I can see from my computer across the country says yes, but I'm not there. The idea that there shouldn't be a TRIAL is insane, and screams corruption louder than Sheriff Joe's face.
No one thinks [rioting]'s a "good thing". However, it's an understandable thing, a thing we can empathize with.
Completely disagree.
As a person who has small business owning friends and relatives (a tea shop, a yoga studio, a dojo, a comic book store, a dentistry, a dog grooming shop, a dance studio), I know that a riot affecting their business would wipe them out.
On average, it took each of them about 3 years of living in the poor house, working crazy hours, pouring all their savings into their business, before the business finally became profitable and self sufficient. A riot at their business, and they'd basically be starting over from scratch. In fact, if I knew a riot would happen at a friend's business, I'd mimic the Korean community during the 1992 LA riots.
So no, I will never understand, nor ever empathize with rioters.
Of course you don't understand. You just spent your entire post framing it from your point of view. You didn't even attempt to see it from their point of view.
That's, like, what empathy is.
The last 6 pages of this thread are the following exchange:
A: Rioting is bad. I have no empathy for people who riot, because they hurt small businesses.
B: I agree that harming innocent people is a bad thing, and that riots have negative effects. However, if people in power want to prevent rioting, they simply need to give the people of Ferguson an avenue of justice.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying the people who would riot have no other options at this point because they've all been taken away. If you give them options, there's no rioting.
A: They have other avenues! They can protest peacefully!
B: They have been doing that. If it doesn't give them results in the form of justice for the killing of Michael Brown, it proves that their peaceful protests amounted to nothing, which would mean they have no options left and they live under an oppressive regime that is not interested in their well-being, and since peaceful protesting doesn't work... riots.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying these people have done everything they can to not riot up until this point, and if they get pushed into rioting, it'll be because the people in power have backed them into a corner.
A: Rioting is bad, though.
B:
I think that I can reply to everything by replying to this post, but if someone wants me to respond to a specific point from an earlier post, I will if you @ me.
My position is very simple:
1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.
There is a critical distinction between what a person CAN do, and what a person can be REASONABLY EXPECTED to do.
Let's say I'm a destitute Somalian. I have a spouse and child and we're starving to death. I could become a pirate in hopes that I make enough money to feed my family, even though doing so will likely require killing more than three people. I could also do nothing and wait until we starve, or I could hang myself so there's a little more food to go around for the others I care about.
Depending on your philosophical bent, there are a number of moral arguments you could use to describe the latter two possibilities as more morally acceptable than the first, in the abstract. But you can never REASONABLY EXPECT another person to take those options. Humans are ultimately self-interested animals. You can never expect a person to calmly accept a scenario that results in loss of life, libery, or the capacity to pursue happiness for themselves or their loved ones. In desperate times, people do not sit around doing utilitarian calculus; they act with desperation to try and preserve what is most dear to them. And it turns out that human dignity is pretty dear to people!
I have no problem with the Somalian becoming a pirate. That is totally different than rioting though. His choice to be a pirate is more like the choice to attack the police. It is directly related. Rioting would be more like saying "My family is starving, so I will go on a random killing spree."
The pirate analogy fails hard, since they're attacking innocents, which you've been going on about for pages.
Yes, but he isn't doing it randomly. He is doing it towards the goal of saving his family, not expressing an outburst of emotion by visiting random violence on people. It is a bad thing to be a pirate. It is a bad thing to attack the police of Ferguson. But I can understand why someone would not both. Very different from translating emotion into random violence.
Are you fucking kidding me? The reason people would take violent action against the police are because the officers are killing their friends, family, and community members.
Your lack of perspective on this topic is really, really amazing.
IF you really want to talk perspective you have to realize that, in high crime areas, its community members killing community members at a much higher rate than the police. I never see anyone rioting over that.
So because other people murder, it's okay for the people who are supposed to be protecting and serving to do it?
No one thinks [rioting]'s a "good thing". However, it's an understandable thing, a thing we can empathize with.
Completely disagree.
As a person who has small business owning friends and relatives (a tea shop, a yoga studio, a dojo, a comic book store, a dentistry, a dog grooming shop, a dance studio), I know that a riot affecting their business would wipe them out.
On average, it took each of them about 3 years of living in the poor house, working crazy hours, pouring all their savings into their business, before the business finally became profitable and self sufficient. A riot at their business, and they'd basically be starting over from scratch. In fact, if I knew a riot would happen at a friend's business, I'd mimic the Korean community during the 1992 LA riots.
So no, I will never understand, nor ever empathize with rioters.
Of course you don't understand. You just spent your entire post framing it from your point of view. You didn't even attempt to see it from their point of view.
That's, like, what empathy is.
The last 6 pages of this thread are the following exchange:
A: Rioting is bad. I have no empathy for people who riot, because they hurt small businesses.
B: I agree that harming innocent people is a bad thing, and that riots have negative effects. However, if people in power want to prevent rioting, they simply need to give the people of Ferguson an avenue of justice.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying the people who would riot have no other options at this point because they've all been taken away. If you give them options, there's no rioting.
A: They have other avenues! They can protest peacefully!
B: They have been doing that. If it doesn't give them results in the form of justice for the killing of Michael Brown, it proves that their peaceful protests amounted to nothing, which would mean they have no options left and they live under an oppressive regime that is not interested in their well-being, and since peaceful protesting doesn't work... riots.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying these people have done everything they can to not riot up until this point, and if they get pushed into rioting, it'll be because the people in power have backed them into a corner.
A: Rioting is bad, though.
B:
I think that I can reply to everything by replying to this post, but if someone wants me to respond to a specific point from an earlier post, I will if you @ me.
My position is very simple:
1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.
There is a critical distinction between what a person CAN do, and what a person can be REASONABLY EXPECTED to do.
Let's say I'm a destitute Somalian. I have a spouse and child and we're starving to death. I could become a pirate in hopes that I make enough money to feed my family, even though doing so will likely require killing more than three people. I could also do nothing and wait until we starve, or I could hang myself so there's a little more food to go around for the others I care about.
Depending on your philosophical bent, there are a number of moral arguments you could use to describe the latter two possibilities as more morally acceptable than the first, in the abstract. But you can never REASONABLY EXPECT another person to take those options. Humans are ultimately self-interested animals. You can never expect a person to calmly accept a scenario that results in loss of life, libery, or the capacity to pursue happiness for themselves or their loved ones. In desperate times, people do not sit around doing utilitarian calculus; they act with desperation to try and preserve what is most dear to them. And it turns out that human dignity is pretty dear to people!
I have no problem with the Somalian becoming a pirate. That is totally different than rioting though. His choice to be a pirate is more like the choice to attack the police. It is directly related. Rioting would be more like saying "My family is starving, so I will go on a random killing spree."
The pirate analogy fails hard, since they're attacking innocents, which you've been going on about for pages.
Yes, but he isn't doing it randomly. He is doing it towards the goal of saving his family, not expressing an outburst of emotion by visiting random violence on people. It is a bad thing to be a pirate. It is a bad thing to attack the police of Ferguson. But I can understand why someone would not both. Very different from translating emotion into random violence.
Are you fucking kidding me? The reason people would take violent action against the police are because the officers are killing their friends, family, and community members.
Your lack of perspective on this topic is really, really amazing.
IF you really want to talk perspective you have to realize that, in high crime areas, its community members killing community members at a much higher rate than the police. I never see anyone rioting over that.
A police officer taking all the money out of your wallet and calling it civil forfeiture is a THOUSAND times worse than some mugger stealing your wallet. Getting robbed by a street thug means you're having a bad day. Getting robbed by police means you live in a society that hates you. It means that you have nowhere to go and nobody to help you. It's a feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness that I get enraged just imagining.
Also, if you're black in a "high crime" area, if you're assaulted or robbed, you are highly discouraged from reporting it to the police, because you're afraid the police will do something worse. In the fucked up civil service economy in Ferguson, a cop is probably as likely to fabricate a misdemeanor and fine you for it as they are to actually respond to the crime you reported.
Again I am not trying to compare the two. But I should have known better than to answer someones question.
You were using your personal experience as an example as part of a debate. If you don't want that to be scrutinized, yeah don't bring it up.
Out of context you mean. All I stated is that I would hope as an individual that I would have the ability to let processes finish and that I have in the past. But then again you guys love to draw pieces to where they were not intended.
They don't feel they have that ability, or by this point have zero faith in the likelihood that doing so will result in an amount of justice. A decision not to indict by the grand jury would affirm in many minds of those living there (perhaps to some level of finality) that indeed that is the case, and justice is not an option for them under any circumstances. Having read articles such as those linked in this thread, I'm not in any way prepared to disagree with them. So, if they decide that standing aside of a budding riot and letting whatever farce of a process that remains continue to play out is unacceptable, I understand why someone would feel that riot or some other form of gross civil disobedience were the only course of action left.
I understand that. I really do. The discussion at the time we were having was in regards to individual recourse and rioting. I mentioned what I mentioned anecdotally, which should have been apparent. In terms of the article I have mixed feelings. The scale of the ticketing is wrong. But most of the events for said ticketing are entirely avoidable. As for the voting aspect that is definitely something that angers me and needs to be addressed. That is absurd.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
To put it in perspective regarding rioting, remember that one of the major historical touchstones in the founding of our country was a bunch wealthy white people dressing up as native americans and destroying property because they didn't want to pay their taxes.
If you come at the king, you'd best not miss. If the end result was all of the founding fathers dead and the US remaining part of the empire until it left peacefully like Canada, no one would be talking about the heroism of the Boston tea party.
I think it's absurd that your response is that don't take a chance if you can't win. Using your logic, you would have been against the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, the abolition movement, the gay rights movement, etc (and, it should be clear, with all but one of these, the struggle is still continuing). You have to risk losing if you're going to win, dude.
Not to mention it seems to contradict your oh so strong principle in the sanctity of private property (but I hardly expect you to be consistent if it doesn't suit your viewpoint).
It's super easy for somebody to say, "People should always obey the law, full stop" when the speaker isn't being systematically oppressed by the law and its agents.
We've been trying to figure out how to deal with unjust laws for a while, but I think the second half of your post requires a bit more nuance.
All laws oppress the acts of individuals who want to engage in unlawful behavior. That's...what law is. The unstated premise in your post that conveys sympathy for those individuals who do not obey law due to their being oppressed by the law undermines the very notion of law. A speed limit of 65 mph oppresses individuals who want to drive 75 mph. Having their driving speed desires oppressed does not justify driving faster than the speed limit, or rioting.
You, and other posters, are likely trying to justify the acts of individuals who suffer from unjust oppression. But sussing out exactly how that works is difficult. We can easily get to the level of labeling something as "oppression we dislike", but moving from "we dislike" to "unjust" requires some argument. As does the defense of individuals who commit unlawful acts.
The disconnect seems to be that SKFM, and others, have articulated rational arguments that cohere with our legal structure. Others have expressed emotive sentiments. That's going to create the conversation loop we've seen over the last few pages.
It would be helpful if someone could articulate a rational justification for irrational behavior. Otherwise, the conversation will likely continue to emulate Creon and Antigone yelling at each other.
I really don't think it is even slightly useful to try to fit actual human behavior into the deet doot deet paradigm.
It would be more useful if the wildly unrealistic people would crack open a history book or a psychology book and realize that people don't operate rationally in many cases.
note: Just saying "Oh well there's the problem, they should be rational instead" is an unhelpful and unrealistic suggestion so please don't bother making it.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
+9
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
Which is the problem that I have with @spacekungfuman and his response about swinging at the king. The system is designed to make those people lose. It's going to take a lot of swings before something connects.
Maybe. I suppose that his continued dialogue provokes a curiosity in others then, why does he persist in engaging? It's as if this is a purely intellectual exercise for him. It could be this detachment is turning others off - the lack of empathy. Perhaps this is what others are trying to engage with, they see empathy as part of an initial step to any process of tackling any of the problems involved here. Or, to put it another way, maybe asking 'these people seem to not be making rational decisions, that's too bad, I wonder what could be done to change that?'. A detached 'these are bad choices I don't understand them' seems like it could easily not be said and nothing would be lost. The detached perspective displayed here seems to get stuck on 'this is bad because it is bad' in terms of choice.
I considered making this reply a PM, but decided that the sentiment was worth public expression.
The ending sentiment of your post troubles me: "it could easily not be said and nothing would be lost". If D&D is to be something more than a self-congratulatory echo chamber, then different views need to be expressed. I think you are correct that many participants in the thread "see empathy as part of an initial step", and base their arguments on that premise. When SKFM, and others, suggest that we stop emoting and start thinking goose feathers are ruffled, to the point where, as you said, folks think his posts simply are not worth making; they do not contribute anything. This ignores the fact that different starting points are a contribution. That's how discussion works.
If you're turned off by conflicting opinions, then you aren't interested in discussion.
We can critique SKFM's foundation of detached inquiry, and also critique a foundation of unreflective sympathy, which is what he seems to be doing.
"Persons ought to act within the bounds of the law" does not strike me as a silly opinion.
"Why can't you just work within the system?" said the person who'd always had every privilege the system could provide to the other person who'd always been bent over and fucked at every turn by that same system.
+12
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Maybe. I suppose that his continued dialogue provokes a curiosity in others then, why does he persist in engaging? It's as if this is a purely intellectual exercise for him. It could be this detachment is turning others off - the lack of empathy. Perhaps this is what others are trying to engage with, they see empathy as part of an initial step to any process of tackling any of the problems involved here. Or, to put it another way, maybe asking 'these people seem to not be making rational decisions, that's too bad, I wonder what could be done to change that?'. A detached 'these are bad choices I don't understand them' seems like it could easily not be said and nothing would be lost. The detached perspective displayed here seems to get stuck on 'this is bad because it is bad' in terms of choice.
I considered making this reply a PM, but decided that the sentiment was worth public expression.
The ending sentiment of your post troubles me: "it could easily not be said and nothing would be lost". If D&D is to be something more than a self-congratulatory echo chamber, then different views need to be expressed. I think you are correct that many participants in the thread "see empathy as part of an initial step", and base their arguments on that premise. When SKFM, and others, suggest that we stop emoting and start thinking goose feathers are ruffled, to the point where, as you said, folks think his posts simply are not worth making; they do not contribute anything. This ignores the fact that different starting points are a contribution. That's how discussion works.
If you're turned off by conflicting opinions, then you aren't interested in discussion.
We can critique SKFM's foundation of detached inquiry, and also critique a foundation of unreflective sympathy, which is what he seems to be doing.
"Persons ought to act within the bounds of the law" does not strike me as a silly opinion.
That rather depends on the law.
And who it is applied to and how it gets applied differently (see: unequally)
it's almost like you can't discuss this issue in a vacuum. . .
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
Jubal77 on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
Except you're ignoring that very certain sections of the population in Ferguson are stopped far more frequently than others. . .
It's almost like it's avoidable for some people, and hard to avoid for others. . .
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
Except you're ignoring that very certain sections of the population in Ferguson are stopped far more frequently than others. . .
It's almost like it's avoidable for some people, and hard to avoid for others. . .
"This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate."
Um... no I am not.
Edit: I should also, most likely, extrapolate. It is my opinion that ticketing is too low nationally. But this comes from having a police chief in the family. So yeah... probably biased. Pure tangential, anecdotal, IMHO here but based on my knowledge of the goings on around here and personal experiences people are assholes. And they are not nearly ticketed enough.
We can critique SKFM's foundation of detached inquiry, and also critique a foundation of unreflective sympathy, which is what he seems to be doing.
"Persons ought to act within the bounds of the law" does not strike me as a silly opinion.
That rather depends on the law.
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue costs money and time.
Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.
Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
Except you're ignoring that very certain sections of the population in Ferguson are stopped far more frequently than others. . .
It's almost like it's avoidable for some people, and hard to avoid for others. . .
"This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate."
Um... no I am not.
Yes, you are. Your claim that is avoidable is flat out fucking wrong. Avoidable for who? Because the members of one very specific population are getting a disproportionately high amount of tickets compared to another. Even if they reduced the overall number of tickets, without fixing who they are targeting those same ratios will exist. For that certain population, these tickets are not avoidable.
+1
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
We can critique SKFM's foundation of detached inquiry, and also critique a foundation of unreflective sympathy, which is what he seems to be doing.
"Persons ought to act within the bounds of the law" does not strike me as a silly opinion.
That rather depends on the law.
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
"If they'd just pick enough cotton they wouldnt go in the hole and then their children wouldn't be sold so really who's the villain here?"
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue often costs money and time.
Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.
Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.
Those move towards other problems in our society. And again draw away from distinct, matter of fact, statement I made. I never said poverty isn't a thing. It most definitely makes the "system" that much harder to manage. The presence of that issue is a big contributor to the result. But I am discussing the cause.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
"If they'd just pick enough cotton they wouldnt go in the hole and then their children wouldn't be sold so really who's the villain here?"
This is uncalled for putting words into my mouth. Absolutely horrible out of context and I dislike that you would imply that I am being racist here.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
Except you're ignoring that very certain sections of the population in Ferguson are stopped far more frequently than others. . .
It's almost like it's avoidable for some people, and hard to avoid for others. . .
"This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate."
Um... no I am not.
Yes, you are. Your claim that is avoidable is flat out fucking wrong. Avoidable for who? Because the members of one very specific population are getting a disproportionately high amount of tickets compared to another. Even if they reduced the overall number of tickets, without fixing who they are targeting those same ratios will exist. For that certain population, these tickets are not avoidable.
They are fundamentally avoidable. Procedure tickets require the procedure to be present. Pretty simple.
Maybe. I suppose that his continued dialogue provokes a curiosity in others then, why does he persist in engaging? It's as if this is a purely intellectual exercise for him. It could be this detachment is turning others off - the lack of empathy. Perhaps this is what others are trying to engage with, they see empathy as part of an initial step to any process of tackling any of the problems involved here. Or, to put it another way, maybe asking 'these people seem to not be making rational decisions, that's too bad, I wonder what could be done to change that?'. A detached 'these are bad choices I don't understand them' seems like it could easily not be said and nothing would be lost. The detached perspective displayed here seems to get stuck on 'this is bad because it is bad' in terms of choice.
I considered making this reply a PM, but decided that the sentiment was worth public expression.
The ending sentiment of your post troubles me: "it could easily not be said and nothing would be lost". If D&D is to be something more than a self-congratulatory echo chamber, then different views need to be expressed. I think you are correct that many participants in the thread "see empathy as part of an initial step", and base their arguments on that premise. When SKFM, and others, suggest that we stop emoting and start thinking goose feathers are ruffled, to the point where, as you said, folks think his posts simply are not worth making; they do not contribute anything. This ignores the fact that different starting points are a contribution. That's how discussion works.
If you're turned off by conflicting opinions, then you aren't interested in discussion.
We can critique SKFM's foundation of detached inquiry, and also critique a foundation of unreflective sympathy, which is what he seems to be doing.
"Persons ought to act within the bounds of the law" does not strike me as a silly opinion.
I don't think statements that express a lack of understanding regarding the supposed positives of the irrational behaviour of a riot is really following a line of inquiry, is it? It's a dead end, because I don't believe anyone has been stating this opinion - that riots are good, positive, what have you. To repeatedly say 'this is a bad choice', when everyone agrees that it is not a good choice is kind of meaningless isn't it? Has anyone here been saying that to riot is a good choice?
When I bring up detachment, I am not using it in terms of a detached, non emotive but invested sense. I am getting at detachment as in total disconnect from any concern as to a desire for change. When one is only concerned with having everyone agree that rioting is a bad choice, then it doesn't seem that they are even really interested in anything else beyond this triviality. We could all say 'yes, it's a bad choice' to get it out of the way, but is this necessary, or could it be possible that it isn't something that needs to be said? This is what I meant when I said that it could not be said.
When you say that skfm suggested that people stop emoting and start thinking, I'm not sure if I'm seeing that. You seem to believe there's a one or the other thing going on here. Are people not thinking while they're emoting? Can not both occur at the same time. I'm really not sure what you're getting at here J, or how you've come to these conclusions. It doesn't seem rational to me. I don't think the condescension is necessary in your attempt to get whatever perception you've formed across.
The county as a whole is 24% black, but the towns where ticket revenue is 30%+ of their operating budget are 62% black. Blacks in St Louis county are 66% more likely than whites to be pulled over despite this. (Even though whites are more likely to actually be found with contraband.) If you're more likely to be pulled over, you're more likely to be ticketed for something. And then into the system you go, hope you brought some lube.
Also, do you do a walk-around of your car every time you start it up? Check all five of your brake and tail lights? All four turn signals? No? Sounds kind of unreasonable doesn't it? Just because a violation is technically preventable doesn't make it okay for 5-6 municipalities to dogpile you for it.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue often costs money and time.
Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.
Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.
Those move towards other problems in our society. And again draw away from distinct, matter of fact, statement I made. I never said poverty isn't a thing. It most definitely makes the "system" that much harder to manage. The presence of that issue is a big contributor to the result. But I am discussing the cause.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
"If they'd just pick enough cotton they wouldnt go in the hole and then their children wouldn't be sold so really who's the villain here?"
This is uncalled for putting words into my mouth. Absolutely horrible out of context and I dislike that you would imply that I am being racist here.
I'm sorry you don't like the logical consequence of your own arguments.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue often costs money and time.
Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.
Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.
Those move towards other problems in our society. And again draw away from distinct, matter of fact, statement I made. I never said poverty isn't a thing. It most definitely makes the "system" that much harder to manage. The presence of that issue is a big contributor to the result. But I am discussing the cause.
The cause is the systemic oppression of a minority for two hundred years and continues to this day, in various different and insidious forms.
That it veils itself in the trappings of a just and moral "system" doesn't matter given the outcome it results in.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
These people don't have that option. They have to live it every day.
Bullshit. There's always options. I moved 1000 miles away from my parents to Boston, no safety net, almost no savings, as I had a strained relationship with my parents back then. Before I was born, my parents moved 8000 miles away, over an ocean to a completely different country, learning a new language, without enough money for return airfare. So bullshit. There's always options.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue often costs money and time.
Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.
Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.
Those move towards other problems in our society. And again draw away from distinct, matter of fact, statement I made. I never said poverty isn't a thing. It most definitely makes the "system" that much harder to manage. The presence of that issue is a big contributor to the result. But I am discussing the cause.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
"If they'd just pick enough cotton they wouldnt go in the hole and then their children wouldn't be sold so really who's the villain here?"
This is uncalled for putting words into my mouth. Absolutely horrible out of context and I dislike that you would imply that I am being racist here.
I'm sorry you don't like the logical consequence of your own arguments.
I am trying to just provide comparisons. Calling me racist for pointing population differences might cause a small correlation in the population that gets ticketed is dishonest. And instigatory.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue often costs money and time.
Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.
Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.
Those move towards other problems in our society. And again draw away from distinct, matter of fact, statement I made. I never said poverty isn't a thing. It most definitely makes the "system" that much harder to manage. The presence of that issue is a big contributor to the result. But I am discussing the cause.
The cause is the systemic oppression of a minority for two hundred years and continues to this day, in a different and insidious form.
That it veils itself in the trappings of a just and moral "system" doesn't matter given the outcome it results in.
They exist in spite of not because of. The existence of one inflames the other.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue often costs money and time.
Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.
Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.
Those move towards other problems in our society. And again draw away from distinct, matter of fact, statement I made. I never said poverty isn't a thing. It most definitely makes the "system" that much harder to manage. The presence of that issue is a big contributor to the result. But I am discussing the cause.
The cause is the systemic oppression of a minority for two hundred years and continues to this day, in a different and insidious form.
That it veils itself in the trappings of a just and moral "system" doesn't matter given the outcome it results in.
They exist in spite of not because of.
It depends on which "system" you're talking about, because governments don't exist independently of the people who run them. The same law on paper in two different jurisdictions is a different law in practice.
It doesn't matter what the intention of the law is, when it is enforced with a different intention in mind.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
No one thinks [rioting]'s a "good thing". However, it's an understandable thing, a thing we can empathize with.
Completely disagree.
As a person who has small business owning friends and relatives (a tea shop, a yoga studio, a dojo, a comic book store, a dentistry, a dog grooming shop, a dance studio), I know that a riot affecting their business would wipe them out.
On average, it took each of them about 3 years of living in the poor house, working crazy hours, pouring all their savings into their business, before the business finally became profitable and self sufficient. A riot at their business, and they'd basically be starting over from scratch. In fact, if I knew a riot would happen at a friend's business, I'd mimic the Korean community during the 1992 LA riots.
So no, I will never understand, nor ever empathize with rioters.
Of course you don't understand. You just spent your entire post framing it from your point of view. You didn't even attempt to see it from their point of view.
That's, like, what empathy is.
The last 6 pages of this thread are the following exchange:
A: Rioting is bad. I have no empathy for people who riot, because they hurt small businesses.
B: I agree that harming innocent people is a bad thing, and that riots have negative effects. However, if people in power want to prevent rioting, they simply need to give the people of Ferguson an avenue of justice.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying the people who would riot have no other options at this point because they've all been taken away. If you give them options, there's no rioting.
A: They have other avenues! They can protest peacefully!
B: They have been doing that. If it doesn't give them results in the form of justice for the killing of Michael Brown, it proves that their peaceful protests amounted to nothing, which would mean they have no options left and they live under an oppressive regime that is not interested in their well-being, and since peaceful protesting doesn't work... riots.
A: So you're saying the riots are justified!
B: No, I'm saying these people have done everything they can to not riot up until this point, and if they get pushed into rioting, it'll be because the people in power have backed them into a corner.
A: Rioting is bad, though.
B:
I think that I can reply to everything by replying to this post, but if someone wants me to respond to a specific point from an earlier post, I will if you @ me.
My position is very simple:
1. People have control over their actions, and can choose what actions to take and what actions to abstain from. There are no circumstances where someone literally cannot control themself, short of muscle spasms or seizures.
There is a critical distinction between what a person CAN do, and what a person can be REASONABLY EXPECTED to do.
Let's say I'm a destitute Somalian. I have a spouse and child and we're starving to death. I could become a pirate in hopes that I make enough money to feed my family, even though doing so will likely require killing more than three people. I could also do nothing and wait until we starve, or I could hang myself so there's a little more food to go around for the others I care about.
Depending on your philosophical bent, there are a number of moral arguments you could use to describe the latter two possibilities as more morally acceptable than the first, in the abstract. But you can never REASONABLY EXPECT another person to take those options. Humans are ultimately self-interested animals. You can never expect a person to calmly accept a scenario that results in loss of life, libery, or the capacity to pursue happiness for themselves or their loved ones. In desperate times, people do not sit around doing utilitarian calculus; they act with desperation to try and preserve what is most dear to them. And it turns out that human dignity is pretty dear to people!
I have no problem with the Somalian becoming a pirate. That is totally different than rioting though. His choice to be a pirate is more like the choice to attack the police. It is directly related. Rioting would be more like saying "My family is starving, so I will go on a random killing spree."
The pirate analogy fails hard, since they're attacking innocents, which you've been going on about for pages.
Yes, but he isn't doing it randomly. He is doing it towards the goal of saving his family, not expressing an outburst of emotion by visiting random violence on people. It is a bad thing to be a pirate. It is a bad thing to attack the police of Ferguson. But I can understand why someone would not both. Very different from translating emotion into random violence.
Are you fucking kidding me? The reason people would take violent action against the police are because the officers are killing their friends, family, and community members.
Your lack of perspective on this topic is really, really amazing.
IF you really want to talk perspective you have to realize that, in high crime areas, its community members killing community members at a much higher rate than the police. I never see anyone rioting over that.
A police officer taking all the money out of your wallet and calling it civil forfeiture is a THOUSAND times worse than some mugger stealing your wallet. Getting robbed by a street thug means you're having a bad day. Getting robbed by police means you live in a society that hates you. It means that you have nowhere to go and nobody to help you. It's a feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness that I get enraged just imagining.
Also, if you're black in a "high crime" area, if you're assaulted or robbed, you are highly discouraged from reporting it to the police, because you're afraid the police will do something worse. In the fucked up civil service economy in Ferguson, a cop is probably as likely to fabricate a misdemeanor and fine you for it as they are to actually respond to the crime you reported.
You speak truth. I would like to see some of the outrage you see in ferguson right now, over civil forfeiture etc. I would also like to see some talk about the origins of crime inside these ares other than "cause police are bad", and because "welfare state". Not just when a guy goes for a cops gun and the cop is all hopped up on adrenaline so he shoots the person. It's bad, but its fairly rare. The day to day oppression that occurs is much more toxic.
PS when I say I'd like to see more talk, I'm not really saying this forum. It's been my experience that its covered here pretty well. This forum covers most stuff pretty well, unless its a legitimate right wing issue.
These people don't have that option. They have to live it every day.
Bullshit. There's always options. I moved 1000 miles away from my parents to Boston, no safety net, almost no savings, as I had a strained relationship with my parents back then. Before I was born, my parents moved 8000 miles away, over an ocean to a completely different country, learning a new language, without enough money for return airfare. So bullshit. There's always options.
These people don't have that option. They have to live it every day.
Bullshit. There's always options. I moved 1000 miles away from my parents to Boston, no safety net, almost no savings, as I had a strained relationship with my parents back then. Before I was born, my parents moved 8000 miles away, over an ocean to a completely different country, learning a new language, without enough money for return airfare. So bullshit. There's always options.
I think you're making a pretty large assumption that because you were able to do something, other people should be be capable of doing it as well. Not all situations are equal or comparable. Your "almost no savings" example is actually no savings for people. The money you spent moving is not money everyone has. The people who helped you get on your feet are not always there, waiting in another city for others.
Maybe. I suppose that his continued dialogue provokes a curiosity in others then, why does he persist in engaging? It's as if this is a purely intellectual exercise for him. It could be this detachment is turning others off - the lack of empathy. Perhaps this is what others are trying to engage with, they see empathy as part of an initial step to any process of tackling any of the problems involved here. Or, to put it another way, maybe asking 'these people seem to not be making rational decisions, that's too bad, I wonder what could be done to change that?'. A detached 'these are bad choices I don't understand them' seems like it could easily not be said and nothing would be lost. The detached perspective displayed here seems to get stuck on 'this is bad because it is bad' in terms of choice.
I considered making this reply a PM, but decided that the sentiment was worth public expression.
The ending sentiment of your post troubles me: "it could easily not be said and nothing would be lost". If D&D is to be something more than a self-congratulatory echo chamber, then different views need to be expressed. I think you are correct that many participants in the thread "see empathy as part of an initial step", and base their arguments on that premise. When SKFM, and others, suggest that we stop emoting and start thinking goose feathers are ruffled, to the point where, as you said, folks think his posts simply are not worth making; they do not contribute anything. This ignores the fact that different starting points are a contribution. That's how discussion works.
A perspective about the incidence of rioting in a marginalized and othered group that begins with "ignoring the concept of empathy..." is about as useful as a perspective on architectural engineering that begins with "ignoring the concept of mathematics..."
Human behavior is emotional, human perception is subjective, human life experiences are varied, and any attempt to understand how or why another person behaves the way they do requires making an attempt to understand that person's unique perspective (i.e. "empathy"). As does the entire endeavor of communication, for that matter. If you don't make that effort, you're just masturbating. I'm not overly interested in a hypothetical discussion of how Vulcans or Roombas would be most likely to engage in civil disobediance.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
"If they'd just pick enough cotton they wouldnt go in the hole and then their children wouldn't be sold so really who's the villain here?"
This is uncalled for. He may be ignorant when it comes to issues that people in poverty face, but that doesnt make him a racist.
These people don't have that option. They have to live it every day.
Bullshit. There's always options. I moved 1000 miles away from my parents to Boston, no safety net, almost no savings, as I had a strained relationship with my parents back then. Before I was born, my parents moved 8000 miles away, over an ocean to a completely different country, learning a new language, without enough money for return airfare. So bullshit. There's always options.
These people don't have that option. They have to live it every day.
Bullshit. There's always options. I moved 1000 miles away from my parents to Boston, no safety net, almost no savings, as I had a strained relationship with my parents back then. Before I was born, my parents moved 8000 miles away, over an ocean to a completely different country, learning a new language, without enough money for return airfare. So bullshit. There's always options.
Because you could do it means anyone can, right? If you're going to present an anecdote and try to display it as fact then you'll need to list out all of the priviledges you had so we can compare and contrast with these people's priviledges to decide if what you say is true. Were you considered a criminal to the point you could no longer vote due to an oppressive police force overticketing you for offenses others would get off with a warning for? Were you living paycheck to paycheck and thus had absolutely no savings whatsoever?
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue often costs money and time.
Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.
Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.
Those move towards other problems in our society. And again draw away from distinct, matter of fact, statement I made. I never said poverty isn't a thing. It most definitely makes the "system" that much harder to manage. The presence of that issue is a big contributor to the result. But I am discussing the cause.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
"If they'd just pick enough cotton they wouldnt go in the hole and then their children wouldn't be sold so really who's the villain here?"
This is uncalled for putting words into my mouth. Absolutely horrible out of context and I dislike that you would imply that I am being racist here.
I'm sorry you don't like the logical consequence of your own arguments.
I am trying to just provide comparisons. Calling me racist for pointing population differences might cause a small correlation in the population that gets ticketed is dishonest. And instigatory.
I can't speak for V1m, but it personally looked like he was drawing parallels to prior times in history when people have been extorted along racial lines while being told the mechanism to avoid said extortion was under their control, even if it was utterly out of reach. Not specifically claiming that you or your argument was racist.
Saying "the events they get ticketed for are avoidable" is missing the forest for the trees.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
"If they'd just pick enough cotton they wouldnt go in the hole and then their children wouldn't be sold so really who's the villain here?"
This is uncalled for. He may be ignorant when it comes to issues that people in poverty face, but that doesnt make him a racist.
I grew up on a reservation in abject poverty actually.
Posts
People talk about this all the time.
I don't even know that Darren Wilson should be in jail.
The evidence I can see from my computer across the country says yes, but I'm not there. The idea that there shouldn't be a TRIAL is insane, and screams corruption louder than Sheriff Joe's face.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
So because other people murder, it's okay for the people who are supposed to be protecting and serving to do it?
A police officer taking all the money out of your wallet and calling it civil forfeiture is a THOUSAND times worse than some mugger stealing your wallet. Getting robbed by a street thug means you're having a bad day. Getting robbed by police means you live in a society that hates you. It means that you have nowhere to go and nobody to help you. It's a feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness that I get enraged just imagining.
Also, if you're black in a "high crime" area, if you're assaulted or robbed, you are highly discouraged from reporting it to the police, because you're afraid the police will do something worse. In the fucked up civil service economy in Ferguson, a cop is probably as likely to fabricate a misdemeanor and fine you for it as they are to actually respond to the crime you reported.
I understand that. I really do. The discussion at the time we were having was in regards to individual recourse and rioting. I mentioned what I mentioned anecdotally, which should have been apparent. In terms of the article I have mixed feelings. The scale of the ticketing is wrong. But most of the events for said ticketing are entirely avoidable. As for the voting aspect that is definitely something that angers me and needs to be addressed. That is absurd.
don't do this! don't!
(also you forgot about the temperance movement)
I really don't think it is even slightly useful to try to fit actual human behavior into the deet doot deet paradigm.
It would be more useful if the wildly unrealistic people would crack open a history book or a psychology book and realize that people don't operate rationally in many cases.
note: Just saying "Oh well there's the problem, they should be rational instead" is an unhelpful and unrealistic suggestion so please don't bother making it.
Getting a ticket for a busted taillight is avoidable, yes. It's also reasonable that someone could be completely unaware that their taillight was burned out. That's why most of the time a cop will be willing to give the driver a warning, or you can present a receipt for a taillight replacement in court and get the ticket dismissed.
That doesn't happen in St Louis county because there are so many piddly little towns all operating under the model of "ticket everybody (but mostly black people) for everything" so every busted taillight isn't one ticket, it's five tickets, nobody gives a damn about the driver because they need those sweet sweet ticket revenues. Every additional ticket makes it that much more likely that someone would miss a court date due to scheduling conflicts, inability to take off work, or just plain forgetfulness (since some of these towns only hold traffic court twice a year).
The towns have no incentive to let people off with a warning, and every incentive to fuck them without lube, and do it harder and harder every year for more and more petty offenses because that ticket money is the only thing propping up their little fiefdoms. Lots of these towns are explicitly breaking state law by deriving too much of their budget from fines, lying about it to the state, and nobody does a damn thing. The cops don't care, hell you're apparently allowed to shoot a guy to death and nobody even makes you fill out a report.
It's a collective action problem on the part of local governments, so telling people "just don't do those things and you won't get tickets" is shifting the blame from the oppressors to the oppressed.
Which is the problem that I have with @spacekungfuman and his response about swinging at the king. The system is designed to make those people lose. It's going to take a lot of swings before something connects.
I considered making this reply a PM, but decided that the sentiment was worth public expression.
The ending sentiment of your post troubles me: "it could easily not be said and nothing would be lost". If D&D is to be something more than a self-congratulatory echo chamber, then different views need to be expressed. I think you are correct that many participants in the thread "see empathy as part of an initial step", and base their arguments on that premise. When SKFM, and others, suggest that we stop emoting and start thinking goose feathers are ruffled, to the point where, as you said, folks think his posts simply are not worth making; they do not contribute anything. This ignores the fact that different starting points are a contribution. That's how discussion works.
If you're turned off by conflicting opinions, then you aren't interested in discussion.
We can critique SKFM's foundation of detached inquiry, and also critique a foundation of unreflective sympathy, which is what he seems to be doing.
"Persons ought to act within the bounds of the law" does not strike me as a silly opinion.
That rather depends on the law.
And who it is applied to and how it gets applied differently (see: unequally)
it's almost like you can't discuss this issue in a vacuum. . .
That doesn't negate the fact that the behavior has to exist for the oppressive situation to exist and that behavior is nationally unlawful. All I stated is that the vast majority of the tickets being handed out, traffic violations, are avoidable. This is base fact. I specifically stated the scale was high for a purpose. This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate. But the system present here is everywhere. Leniency from ticketing is a thing and I did not say it wasn't. I do know that anywhere in the US if you do not pay your ticket you will get a warrant put out for you. If you get stopped and when the cop runs your plates you will get arrested. That part of the oppression is present but like I said avoidable. And forgive me if this sounds cold, it is meant matter of fact, but isn't the population in this area disproportionately one sided in the minority area? So if there was a unit that existed that ticketed all instances of individuals breaking the law, no matter how small, it would of course be of course against mostly minority?
Except you're ignoring that very certain sections of the population in Ferguson are stopped far more frequently than others. . .
It's almost like it's avoidable for some people, and hard to avoid for others. . .
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/
Use the link to do a search on Ferguson.
"This department was issuing tickets at too high a rate."
Um... no I am not.
Edit: I should also, most likely, extrapolate. It is my opinion that ticketing is too low nationally. But this comes from having a police chief in the family. So yeah... probably biased. Pure tangential, anecdotal, IMHO here but based on my knowledge of the goings on around here and personal experiences people are assholes. And they are not nearly ticketed enough.
I think laws are something to be followed on a basis more significant than "if you feel like it".
They're not always avoidable if you're in poverty, because fixing those issue costs money and time.
Need a new driver's license? That will be 20 dollars and a trip across town to the only DMV. Oh, you still need to drive to work and your minimum wage job doesn't let you take it off? Here is a ticket.
Need a new tail light? Hope you can afford it and the tickets you'll be handed until you can.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Yes, you are. Your claim that is avoidable is flat out fucking wrong. Avoidable for who? Because the members of one very specific population are getting a disproportionately high amount of tickets compared to another. Even if they reduced the overall number of tickets, without fixing who they are targeting those same ratios will exist. For that certain population, these tickets are not avoidable.
Are you really positing that there are not unjust/unequally applied laws?
"If they'd just pick enough cotton they wouldnt go in the hole and then their children wouldn't be sold so really who's the villain here?"
Those move towards other problems in our society. And again draw away from distinct, matter of fact, statement I made. I never said poverty isn't a thing. It most definitely makes the "system" that much harder to manage. The presence of that issue is a big contributor to the result. But I am discussing the cause.
This is uncalled for putting words into my mouth. Absolutely horrible out of context and I dislike that you would imply that I am being racist here.
They are fundamentally avoidable. Procedure tickets require the procedure to be present. Pretty simple.
I don't think statements that express a lack of understanding regarding the supposed positives of the irrational behaviour of a riot is really following a line of inquiry, is it? It's a dead end, because I don't believe anyone has been stating this opinion - that riots are good, positive, what have you. To repeatedly say 'this is a bad choice', when everyone agrees that it is not a good choice is kind of meaningless isn't it? Has anyone here been saying that to riot is a good choice?
When I bring up detachment, I am not using it in terms of a detached, non emotive but invested sense. I am getting at detachment as in total disconnect from any concern as to a desire for change. When one is only concerned with having everyone agree that rioting is a bad choice, then it doesn't seem that they are even really interested in anything else beyond this triviality. We could all say 'yes, it's a bad choice' to get it out of the way, but is this necessary, or could it be possible that it isn't something that needs to be said? This is what I meant when I said that it could not be said.
When you say that skfm suggested that people stop emoting and start thinking, I'm not sure if I'm seeing that. You seem to believe there's a one or the other thing going on here. Are people not thinking while they're emoting? Can not both occur at the same time. I'm really not sure what you're getting at here J, or how you've come to these conclusions. It doesn't seem rational to me. I don't think the condescension is necessary in your attempt to get whatever perception you've formed across.
Also, do you do a walk-around of your car every time you start it up? Check all five of your brake and tail lights? All four turn signals? No? Sounds kind of unreasonable doesn't it? Just because a violation is technically preventable doesn't make it okay for 5-6 municipalities to dogpile you for it.
I'm sorry you don't like the logical consequence of your own arguments.
The cause is the systemic oppression of a minority for two hundred years and continues to this day, in various different and insidious forms.
That it veils itself in the trappings of a just and moral "system" doesn't matter given the outcome it results in.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I am trying to just provide comparisons. Calling me racist for pointing population differences might cause a small correlation in the population that gets ticketed is dishonest. And instigatory.
They exist in spite of not because of. The existence of one inflames the other.
It depends on which "system" you're talking about, because governments don't exist independently of the people who run them. The same law on paper in two different jurisdictions is a different law in practice.
It doesn't matter what the intention of the law is, when it is enforced with a different intention in mind.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You speak truth. I would like to see some of the outrage you see in ferguson right now, over civil forfeiture etc. I would also like to see some talk about the origins of crime inside these ares other than "cause police are bad", and because "welfare state". Not just when a guy goes for a cops gun and the cop is all hopped up on adrenaline so he shoots the person. It's bad, but its fairly rare. The day to day oppression that occurs is much more toxic.
PS when I say I'd like to see more talk, I'm not really saying this forum. It's been my experience that its covered here pretty well. This forum covers most stuff pretty well, unless its a legitimate right wing issue.
There's no such thing as slavery because people who truly wish to be free will find a way to escape?
MWO: Adamski
I think you're making a pretty large assumption that because you were able to do something, other people should be be capable of doing it as well. Not all situations are equal or comparable. Your "almost no savings" example is actually no savings for people. The money you spent moving is not money everyone has. The people who helped you get on your feet are not always there, waiting in another city for others.
Human behavior is emotional, human perception is subjective, human life experiences are varied, and any attempt to understand how or why another person behaves the way they do requires making an attempt to understand that person's unique perspective (i.e. "empathy"). As does the entire endeavor of communication, for that matter. If you don't make that effort, you're just masturbating. I'm not overly interested in a hypothetical discussion of how Vulcans or Roombas would be most likely to engage in civil disobediance.
This is uncalled for. He may be ignorant when it comes to issues that people in poverty face, but that doesnt make him a racist.
More like, "I escaped slavery therefore every slave who hasn't escaped doesn't have an excuse."
Putting the burden on the oppressed to escape their oppressors rather than fixing the system so they are no longer oppressed is pretty damn goosey.
Because you could do it means anyone can, right? If you're going to present an anecdote and try to display it as fact then you'll need to list out all of the priviledges you had so we can compare and contrast with these people's priviledges to decide if what you say is true. Were you considered a criminal to the point you could no longer vote due to an oppressive police force overticketing you for offenses others would get off with a warning for? Were you living paycheck to paycheck and thus had absolutely no savings whatsoever?
I can't speak for V1m, but it personally looked like he was drawing parallels to prior times in history when people have been extorted along racial lines while being told the mechanism to avoid said extortion was under their control, even if it was utterly out of reach. Not specifically claiming that you or your argument was racist.
I grew up on a reservation in abject poverty actually.