Jump to content
CrownSlayer’s Shadow

Police Brutality Thread

Recommended Posts

I don't know if he's missing the point, so much as trying to emphasize that particular officer probably hasn't done anything and so isn't a valid target.

Now, if he started talking about good cops when brutality is being discussed, on the other hand... that's the usual stupid deflecting tactic. Stating that not every member of a group is contributing to the problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Most protesters aren't rioters. Most police aren't vicious killers. That doesn't mean that riots don't sometimes happen, or that unjust killings don't sometimes happen.

However, I think he's making a good point in separating the individuals from the institution. The police as an institution have plenty of problems. He's establishing his issue is with that institution, not necessarily the individual officers themselves. Let's compare: you can be warm towards individual soldiers, but dislike the military as an institution. It's not too strange an approach, given that problems with institutions very often are the result of those running them; the police, for example, might not have so many problems if there was far more accountability. As it stands, even an officer who isn't malicious in their intent might end up using excessive force, being negligent, etc. because he's not scrutinized enough. The people behind the desks are the ones who will control much of what happens in the field.

Overall though, this isn't that different from the BLM chapter that decided to postpone a protest in favor of having a barbecue with the local police force due to heightened tensions. It's not taking away from the issue of brutality, but trying to keep things from escalating.

I would say this is good. A violent fight is not a fight that the black community will win short of some insane stroke of fortune (this is why I call those partaking in violence idiots). In absence of sovereignty as an end goal (which is pretty much impossible in this case barring a massive population relocation that would likely kill many), violence is not an effective tool of change. As a dispersed minority, all violence will do for the black community is encourage reprisal. We saw this with Nixon: he used the race riots that ensued in the aftermath of Dr. King's death as a mandate to build up the modern police state. As an aside, that makes violence in 2016 especially concerning as it gives political capital to people like Trump.

The average white person doesn't think "we should work with them" when they see riots. They think "we need to control them." Contrast to the white people who saw white cops beating children in Dr. King's marches; they immediately thought "Oh my God. We're animals." This is of course why it is so damned frustrating that the media relishes over-representing violence perpetrated by blacks, because it encourages racist thinking and policies.

In absence of sovereignty, ethnic conflict will only lead to slavery at best (I feel it important to note forced labor is legal in the USA as punishment for a crime, which rioting counts as) and genocide at worst. Remember how blindly the American public walked into George Bush's war machine as a result of a few thousand people being killed. Imagine what they'd support if there was an actual semblance of race war. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine: just look at what happened to countless indigenous tribes. Isolated firmly as an "other," it wasn't hard at all to justify butchering them, and then forcing the fraction that remained onto the table scrap lands of what is now the United States.

Now sure, a race war isn't realistically on the table. But it very well could be if violence wasn't ruled out in its most basic, individual form. Preventing a small attack here, a riot there, with pacifist rhetoric ensures that a much larger state of violence never coalesces. Which ultimately produces the best results for the black community, because chances are any violent confrontation would end badly. Consider the situation of many ethnic groups in India: they choose to work together rather than try political separation, because they are so dispersed that it's impossible to really have a strategic position over the others.

Does it suck to be at a disadvantage and not have the same options as your opponents? Of course it does. But that's politics for you. On the other hand, Dr. King turned that disadvantage into an advantage. He understood violence wasn't an option for his group, but it was for his enemies... so he goaded them into using it. Lo and behold, it won him massive sympathy from the masses that could be converted into victories.

Did he die? Of course he did. But better one than many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2016 at 4:24 PM, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

The average white person doesn't think "we should work with them" when they see riots. They think "we need to control them." Contrast to the white people who saw white cops beating children in Dr. King's marches; they immediately thought "Oh my God. We're animals." This is of course why it is so damned frustrating that the media relishes over-representing violence perpetrated by blacks, because it encourages racist thinking and policies.

Don't overstate the empathy of white Americans at the time. Around the height of the movement, 78% of whites would move out of their neighborhoods if blacks ever moved in. King's march that every white person nowadays likes to trot out to silence angry black people was viewed unfavorably by 60% of whites at the time it was actually happening. The month after its passage, just a tiny bit over 50% of people supported the Act, while the rest were either of mix of opposition, uncertainty, or fear that the civil rights movement was being infiltrated by communism, to say nothing of the fact that this sudden shift in law led to the rise of the religious right and focus on white identity politics in the Republican party, the Southern strategy, Reagan and by extension HW and Clinton fucking black people over through Reagonimics and the War on Drugs, colorblind and classism culture on both the right and the left, and now ultimately Trump right now actually having a fighting chance at the Presidency and knocking us back into the 40s.

What happened back then wasn't some massive shift in the hearts and minds of white people because "omg the children!!!" They haven't and still largely don't give a fuck about me and the people who look like me. It was just enough support to edge in an environment where Johnson could put his name on the Act and codify this shit into law and be done with it, and it's come with a whole bunch of caveats ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it would only get worse if rioting idiots aren't put in their place. Which was my main point.

White flight isn't evidence of a lack of compassion, either. It's evidence of an interest in home values. Lots of white people today have no problem with integration, interracial marriage, etc. but quickly throw a fit at the idea of living among blacks. Not because they dislike blacks per se, but blacks are associated with lower home values. Racism of economic self-interest is a distinguishing feature of racism beyond the South.

Now sure, white people could break the cycle by simply not moving when blacks move in... but that requires mass action on the same level it would take to make a third party viable in an election. It's just impractical and it's easier to go with the flow for most.

But anyway. My main point remains. No allies will be won over through violence. Doesn't matter how frustrating the slow pace of progress is. Expecting rapid change is already a fool's errand.

This isn't white privilege talking. This is just me once more stating why the violent approach utilized by lots of other movements will not work here. Blacks are not the colonists, the French Resistance, or even the American Indians. They are a dispersed minority group of American citizens, and so violence is off the table as an effective means of change. Slave revolts didn't end slavery. The white government of the North did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're associated with lower home values because racist redlining still exists and we simply have less wealth to spend because of racists taking it, burning it down, and paving over it for the better part of a few centuries. However, white people flee from rich-ass Asians too, to once again say nothing of the racist rhetoric that continues to dog black people even in progressive circles like this one, so let's not try to put a decidedly racist situation back into an economic light. I had enough of that crud with Bernie. It's a symptom, not the cause.

Ultimately though, my point wasn't concerning rioting, which is an argument we've had before and I'm not interested in discussing again. I'm just trying to make sure we all understand that the white moderate block isn't as empathetic as you make them out to be. There wasn't a sudden massive change of heart because they looked at the poor little children being hosed down (to say nothing of the fact that A.) Children were kept away from the fray as much as possible, with the biggest example being Rosa Parks taking over the seat protest from a student, and B.) these kinds of clashes were violent on both sides anyway. Understand that some protesters got some blows in). It's not a Disney story. It's one of empathy mixed with begrudging acceptance, political expediency, and ultimately of being forgotten because "you got your rights, now stop complaining."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

However, white people flee from rich-ass Asians too, to once again say nothing of the racist rhetoric that continues to dog black people even in progressive circles like this one, so let's not try to put a decidedly racist situation back into an economic light. I had enough of that crud with Bernie.

Well, not only is this in the South, but it seems the grievances are still primarily economic. They're a model minority, but they're too good at what they're doing. This is the same reason the Japanese were demonized; they were welcome at first since they were very hardworking people with strong ethics, but as they started to develop a powerful business presence, whites quickly turned on them.

Just the general trend of wanting non-whites around to fill an economic function, but quickly turning on them if they become too good at filling it.

6 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

There wasn't a sudden massive change of heart because they looked at the poor little children being hosed down (to say nothing of the fact that A.) Children were kept away from the fray as much as possible, with the biggest example being Rosa Parks taking over the seat protest from a student, and B.) these kinds of clashes were violent on both sides anyway. Understand that some protestors got some blows in). It's not a Disney story. It's one of empathy mixed with begrudging acceptance, political expediency, and ultimately of being forgotten because "you got your rights, now stop complaining."

Maybe that was the case in a lot of the protests, but Birmingham 1963 is more pivotal. The children in that were on the front lines and were consistently nonviolent. And their actions are what got JFK to back Civil Rights and lead to massive desegregation in the city.

Naturally there won't be an outpour of empathy if you remove the object that could cause it from play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Well, not only is this in the South, but it seems the grievances are still primarily economic. They're a model minority, but they're too good at what they're doing. This is the same reason the Japanese were demonized; they were welcome at first since they were very hardworking people with strong ethics, but as they started to develop a powerful business presence, whites quickly turned on them. Just the general trend of wanting non-whites around to fill an economic function, but quickly turning on them if they become too good at filling it.

Literally all of this stems from a racist assumption about Asians. The economic rationalizations are just that- rationalizations for the underlying racism.

1 minute ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Naturally there won't be an outpour of empathy if you remove the object that could cause it from play.

They did with Rosa Parks, and that was also a pivotal point. But this all belies the actual point I made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

They did with Rosa Parks, and that was also a pivotal point. But this all belies the actual point I made.

But probably not as pivotal as it could have been with a young student being victimized in her place instead. Which is my point.

It seems children stimulate enough empathy to tilt the balance, and that's what is key.

There are enough compassionate white people to tilt the balance either way, just like moderates in an election. And those compassionate white people are quickly alienated through seeing blacks as perpetrators, rather than victims, of violence.

We've seen how the demonization works in any of these cases. This is where children are useful: they're a lot harder to fit into the "thug who deserved it" role that many whites construct.

It seems there's plenty of empathy. Just for children only, because a child is innocent and is a lot harder to frame for causing their situation. Whites don't blame black child soldiers overseas for their situation, after all. The child's perceived lack of full mental and physical abilities gives them a status no one else can match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

We've seen how the demonization works in any of these cases. This is where children are useful: they're a lot harder to fit into the "thug who deserved it" role that many whites construct.

It seems there's plenty of empathy. Just for children only, because a child is innocent and is a lot harder to frame for causing their situation.

Have you forgotten the recent shootings and police intimidation of black children and teenagers where some of these same white moderate people hem and haw and wring their hands about whether or not these "innocent children" deserved it and thus little to nothing has been done about the issue as a result of their inaction, to say nothing of the fact that studies show y'all see our children as older than they are and less innocent than white children anyway. 

On top of that, having "plenty of empathy" only for children is insulting horseshit. That's not empathy; it's a facile bias towards children that has nothing to do with race, frankly. If me and my family's lives matter less now because we aged like any other human being, then these white people are functionally no different from the outright racists courting Trump. They are not allies, they are not friends, they are not aware, and they and should not be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you two are talking about white moderates, I think this quote from MLK (who white moderates tend to trot out in debates), from his Letter from Birmingham Jail, says it all. 

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the pancakes's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the pancakes to wait until a "more convenient season." 

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

We still see to this day, How many white moderates today, say they don't want violent protests, that all protests should be peaceful, but in the next breath, criticize Collin Kaepernick for his peaceful protest of taking a knee? The answer, is too many to count.

 

In other police brutality news, we have another unarmed black man killed by police. Alfred Olango, was shot and killed, in the El Cajon suburb of San Diego, after his sister called the police, to help him, as he was acting unusual. I know it's speculated that he was having a seizure, and that he was mentally ill, but I don't know if either of those things have been confirmed. Either way, there was no reason for the cops to do this. He is now the 217th unarmed black man killed by police this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2016 at 1:37 PM, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

A six-year-old was shot and killed.

Let me repeat that: a six-year-old. Five times!!!

But what really gets me is how quick the officers got charged with the crime compared to other case. Where the hell was the quickness with the last several or so police shootings?

Do you think having this spread on the news would do good or bad for the message considering its a Black Cop on a White person? I mean, we just mentioned how people seeing kids being beat up by police during MLK's walk was the turning point. Kids are (sadly) an easy way to make people look at things in another way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, PSI Wind said:

Do you think having this spread on the news would do good or bad for the message considering its a Black Cop on a White person? I mean, we just mentioned how people seeing kids being beat up by police during MLK's walk was the turning point. Kids are (sadly) an easy way to make people look at things in another way.

Oh, you can definitely bet people are gonna use this to try and discredit Black Lives Matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

That's not enough for them. This time it's a black cop, which is all racists need in order to go "SEE BLACK COPS MURDER PEOPLE TOO".

That makes them advocates for child murder from cops though. There's no logic in that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PSI Wind said:

That makes them advocates for child murder from cops though. There's no logic in that

Not really; if anything people are gonna use this whenever people voice their anger at another unarmed black person being shot over a misdemeanor. "What about when those black cops shot a white kid, huh? Why aren't you talking about that?"

Also don't give them credit by assuming them capable of using logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2016 at 0:21 PM, Nepenthe said:

Have you forgotten the recent shootings and police intimidation of black children and teenagers where some of these same white moderate people hem and haw and wring their hands about whether or not these "innocent children" deserved it and thus little to nothing has been done about the issue as a result of their inaction, to say nothing of the fact that studies show y'all see our children as older than they are and less innocent than white children anyway. 

No, I have not. The fact still is there's an overall cultural bias towards children. We all see how teary-eyed white people get at starving black kids in other countries.

Those undesirable opinions towards black children are just intersectionality at work. It would still be better to be a black child than a black man.

Quote

On top of that, having "plenty of empathy" only for children is insulting horseshit. That's not empathy; it's a facile bias towards children that has nothing to do with race, frankly. If me and my family's lives matter less now because we aged like any other human being, then these white people are functionally no different from the outright racists courting Trump. They are not allies, they are not friends, they are not aware, and they and should not be treated as such.

But you can still use this sentiment to your advantage. 

As for "allies." We are all pursuing our different interests and the best we can do is try to make others' pursuits somehow conductive to our own. You will find very few people who are an exact ideological match, so you must inevitably find ways to make others pursue the same goals as you for different reasons. You can try to change how people feel, but given the difficulty in doing so, it is good to be able to fall back on simply finding ways to push them towards what you want.

You call them functional racists. I call them "useful idiots." With the right approach, we can make their irrational biases work in our favor, just as Dr. King did.

On 9/30/2016 at 6:21 PM, Dizcrybe said:

That's not enough for them. This time it's a black cop, which is all racists need in order to go "SEE BLACK COPS MURDER PEOPLE TOO".

I think this is where a disservice has been done to the police brutality issue. Yes, there is racial disparity. But since race has become such a huge focus on the debate, it has taken away from core issues of brutality that cops of all colors embrace. We don't see any real noticeable decline in cases from an expanded number of minority officers, which speaks volumes about both internalized racism as well as an overall violent subculture.

On 9/30/2016 at 6:29 PM, Dizcrybe said:

Not really; if anything people are gonna use this whenever people voice their anger at another unarmed black person being shot over a misdemeanor. "What about when those black cops shot a white kid, huh? Why aren't you talking about that?"

More or less why I support mandatory liberal arts education for everyone. Critical thinking skills are sorely lacking.

I could, for example, discuss issues facing men without saying women's issues do not matter. The idea is white people already have a forum to discuss issues facing them, by merit of being in the majority. Deflection tactics are downright obnoxious.

Never mind we've established that despite the tendency of police to back each other, police who shoot white victims have a much higher chance of being punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

No, I have not. The fact still is there's an overall cultural bias towards children. We all see how teary-eyed white people get at starving black kids in other countries.

Those undesirable opinions towards black children are just intersectionality at work. It would still be better to be a black child than a black man.

We're talking about just sympathy towards the children right? Because I'd argue that being a black child would make one more vulnerable to the system to the point we have incidents like Tamir Rice (who while stupid for having a toy gun out, was still disturbingly gunned down with nary a second thought given to get him to put the toy down).

It's still rather hypocritical for one to be teary-eyed towards starving black children in other countries while hardly wanting to do much, yet look at those same children within their borders with scorn and disgust. Not that I don't see your point, but it is worth noting that even black kids that don't look older still have cops coming at them with guns for some stupidly bizarre reason at pool parties. Even more when we see white kids doing things even worse and they get off much easier.

Quote

You call them functional racists. I call them "useful idiots." With the right approach, we can make their irrational biases work in our favor, just as Dr. King did.

Isn't there something else one can do other than use children? I don't deny the tactic as much as I'd rather avoid that risk, but how far does one have to go before we start bringing the kids out to get anything done?

And how big a guarantee is that given this age of cell phone cameras recording officers threatening children and we still have the same problems? Because with that police lobby being in the way, I'm not sure how that irrational biases can do much even in our favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

We're talking about just sympathy towards the children right? Because I'd argue that being a black child would make one more vulnerable to the system to the point we have incidents like Tamir Rice (who while stupid for having a toy gun out, was still disturbingly gunned down with nary a second thought given to get him to put the toy down).

Only in an "all else being equal" sense. It would be better to be a black child than a black man in terms of police brutality, but a black child will always be at a disadvantage versus a white child.

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

It's still rather hypocritical for one to be teary-eyed towards starving black children in other countries while hardly wanting to do much, yet look at those same children within their borders with scorn and disgust.

Well, it's rather like I've noticed a lot of whites are open to the idea of giving reparations to Indians, but scoff at the idea of doing the same for blacks.

It's somehow easier to feel sympathy for people you're not in direct contact with, likely as a result of not having to compete with them. There's also the fact that when you don't live among a people, you don't see their malcontents. Indians are so few and so dispersed we don't really see the issues within their communities, such as widespread alcoholism. On the other hand, it's easy to see, say, the existence of gangs in black communities, and quickly stereotype the entire demographic as being responsible.

But even in absence of any problems, that competitive element is all it takes for even the most racially-progressive white to suddenly get on board with racist policies, as happened for many Northerners.

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Isn't there something else one can do other than use children? I don't deny the tactic as much as I'd rather avoid that risk, but how far does one have to go before we start bringing the kids out to get anything done?

Of course other tactics could produce results. I think BLM's use of traffic disruption is brilliant. It's also highlighting the First World Problems of white people more than anything else, really.

Children are just one possible method of achieving goals. I know it wasn't an easy decision for Dr. King to make either (he was chewed out by Malcolm X over it, even), but he felt it was a way to make white violence work in the advantage of the cause. As a man who died for his cause (which stands in a stark contrast to X's Russian Roulette hoax), it's quite apparent he was willing to give everything for it. Plus, he made sure the children wanted to be there (and I assume he asked their parents as well), so it's not like he was using human shields.

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

And how big a guarantee is that given this age of cell phone cameras recording officers threatening children and we still have the same problems? Because with that police lobby being in the way, I'm not sure how that irrational biases can do much even in our favor.

Oh, it's not a surefire guarantee. The main use of such a tactic is for the sake of public sympathy, rather than the sympathy of the police. The police are largely a lost cause simply by merit of the fact they let the problem continue to begin with, which speaks to a weakness of character across the institution. Good cops or bad cops, they're all complicit in an abusive system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UUUUUUGHHH. I'm not good with words at the moment, but can someone please explain how this "white straight privlege isn't real" idea and "racism isn't there" mindset is just bs. I've given my thoughts in response to my friend, but damn he just thinks I just don't want white people to be happy.:/

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you explain to him how black people are statistically more likely to be stopped by police because they suspect they might have drugs on them even though white people are more likely to have drugs? Or that racism =/= KKK member? Or that incidents like this are still commonplace?

I'm not good with words ever, so unfortunately this is as much help as I can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.