2020 Elections

[mahagonny]

I am upset about both. I find it hard to imagine starting a movement to reinforce a group of people's rights to dignity, safety, fair treatment and success and then choosing a mascot who was into armed home invasions and gang burglary. And then putting his face on your new T-shirt.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure it's a George Floyd reference.

I do understand that you don't have to be showing meritorious behavior to be a victim. Still, it's weird. How would you like it if you were the woman whose apartment the gang invaded and you go the mall and there's his face staring at you from the display rack in the clothing store? Doesn't her life matter? How about the cops who apprehended them. Wouldn't she rather have a T-shirt with their faces on it?

Sun Worshiper: it's not just any personal background. It's a noteworthy one.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I am upset about both. I find it hard to imagine starting a movement to reinforce a group of people's rights to dignity, safety, fair treatment and success and then choosing a mascot who was into armed home invasions and gang burglary. And then putting his face on your new T-shirt.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm pretty sure it's a George Floyd reference.

I do understand that you don't have to be showing meritorious behavior to be a victim. Still, it's weird. How would you like it if you were the woman whose apartment the gang invaded and you go the mall and there's his face staring at you from the display rack in the clothing store? Doesn't her life matter? How about the cops who apprehended them. Wouldn't she rather have a T-shirt with their faces on it?

Sun Worshiper: it's not just any personal background. It's a noteworthy one.

I don't care about George Floyd as a person, I care about police brutality. But more immediately, I care about the President and his allies trying to dismantle American democracy. You claim to be upset by that too, but for some reason you change the subject away from it or, in our last exchange, make excuses for Trump, every time the topic comes up.

[Parasaurolophus]

Serious question for context. Would you list one President/presidency you really did like?

None in my lifetime. Of those, Obama was probably the 'best', but as I said, I sour on him more year-by-year. The souring began with his abject failure to close Guantanamo Bay and other CIA black sites, and his subsequent efforts to cover up and carry water for US torturers. It probably should have begun with his refusal to use his majorities to help ordinary people hurt by the financial crisis, but I put his misguided efforts at bipartisanship down to inexperience and gave him a pass. Not that my good opinion matters, of course.

If we're going back before my birth to the last president I think was more or less ok... I dunno, Carter? Probably Johnson, on the whole, although the Vietnam escalation is a serious black mark, and maybe Eisenhower, although I think all the regime change outweighs the good. FDR.

Academics, even if they are activists, should understand the need for subtlety and nuance to accurately explain things and to suggest effective evidence-based improvements.

They do a disservice to their profession by oversimplifying issues and whipping up emotions that make rational work towards sustained progress less likely.

Obama wasn't talking about academics, nor was he being subtle, nuanced, or accurate, and nor has he done rational work towards making sustained progress on the issue.

But if you don't know what the academics who support the movement for Black lives are agitating for, then you either haven't paid adequate attention, or you haven't been listening.

[Parasaurolophus]

Doesn't her life matter? How about the cops who apprehended them.

Her life matters so much that she still has it.

[marshwiggle]

Serious question for context. Would you list one President/presidency you really did like?

None in my lifetime. Of those, Obama was probably the 'best', but as I said, I sour on him more year-by-year. The souring began with his abject failure to close Guantanamo Bay and other CIA black sites, and his subsequent efforts to cover up and carry water for US torturers. It probably should have begun with his refusal to use his majorities to help ordinary people hurt by the financial crisis, but I put his misguided efforts at bipartisanship down to inexperience and gave him a pass. Not that my good opinion matters, of course.

If we're going back before my birth to the last president I think was more or less ok... I dunno, Carter? Probably Johnson, on the whole, although the Vietnam escalation is a serious black mark, and maybe Eisenhower, although I think all the regime change outweighs the good. FDR.

Just a tad.....

[mahagonny]

I don't care about George Floyd as a person, I care about police brutality. But more immediately, I care about the President and his allies trying to dismantle American democracy. You claim to be upset by that too, but for some reason you change the subject away from it or, in our last exchange, make excuses for Trump, every time the topic comes up.

The smart thing to do then, in my opinion, would be to lobby for better ways to curtail police brutality, using as evidence, the total number of Americans of all races brutalized by police over a specific period, which is much higher than just the number of POC brutalized by police. You would have a stronger case and more people engaged. But thanks to the irrational objection to the the phrase 'all lives matter' and any associated sentiment, that's not going to happen.

[Parasaurolophus]

Serious question for context. Would you list one President/presidency you really did like?

None in my lifetime. Of those, Obama was probably the 'best', but as I said, I sour on him more year-by-year. The souring began with his abject failure to close Guantanamo Bay and other CIA black sites, and his subsequent efforts to cover up and carry water for US torturers. It probably should have begun with his refusal to use his majorities to help ordinary people hurt by the financial crisis, but I put his misguided efforts at bipartisanship down to inexperience and gave him a pass. Not that my good opinion matters, of course.

If we're going back before my birth to the last president I think was more or less ok... I dunno, Carter? Probably Johnson, on the whole, although the Vietnam escalation is a serious black mark, and maybe Eisenhower, although I think all the regime change outweighs the good. FDR.

Just a tad.....

It absolutely is. But the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the 'great society' and the 'war on poverty'... those were unalloyed goods. I'm happy to grant that presidential administrations and their legacies are complicated and mixed affairs. My problem with Obama is that he was always more interested in pursuing power than in using it, and his uses of his power were... underwhelming, at best.

The smart thing to do then, in my opinion, would be to lobby for better ways to curtail police brutality, using as evidence, the total number of Americans of all races brutalized by police over a specific period, which is much higher than just the number of POC brutalized by police. You would have a stronger case and more people engaged. But thanks to the irrational objection to the the phrase 'all lives matter' and any associated sentiment, that's not going to happen.

The point of the movement for Black lives is to address (and end) police brutality. Not to end it only for Black people. The reason the 'Black' part comes into it is because it disproportionately targets Black people, and because when it does so, it's much more often excused by voices such as yours.

Objections to 'all lives matter' are not rooted in the 'all lives' part. They're rooted in the phrase's origin as a means of trivializing, and its use to dismiss, concerns about racialized police violence. It's kind of like if in response to all your ravings about adjuncts' rights, someone were to repeatedly insist that that we also consider the troubles of TT faculty. Your point isn't to deny that TT faculty deserve better working conditions (or am I being too generous?), but rather to highlight the fact that one segment of the instructional population has a particularly rough deal, and that its working conditions need to be ameliorated. By repeatedly insisting that you're forgetting about TT faculty, I'm just grasping for excuses to deny the basic--and just!--reforms you're advocating for. I'm needlessly complicating things to ensure you can't get a fair shake. There are limits to the analogy, of course, but I think it mostly holds.

[lightning]

Serious question for context. Would you list one President/presidency you really did like?

None in my lifetime. Of those, Obama was probably the 'best', but as I said, I sour on him more year-by-year. The souring began with his abject failure to close Guantanamo Bay and other CIA black sites, and his subsequent efforts to cover up and carry water for US torturers. It probably should have begun with his refusal to use his majorities to help ordinary people hurt by the financial crisis, but I put his misguided efforts at bipartisanship down to inexperience and gave him a pass. Not that my good opinion matters, of course.

If we're going back before my birth to the last president I think was more or less ok... I dunno, Carter? Probably Johnson, on the whole, although the Vietnam escalation is a serious black mark, and maybe Eisenhower, although I think all the regime change outweighs the good. FDR.

Just a tad.....

It absolutely is. But the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the 'great society' and the 'war on poverty'... those were unalloyed goods. I'm happy to grant that presidential administrations and their legacies are complicated and mixed affairs. My problem with Obama is that he was always more interested in pursuing power than in using it, and his uses of his power were... underwhelming, at best.

The smart thing to do then, in my opinion, would be to lobby for better ways to curtail police brutality, using as evidence, the total number of Americans of all races brutalized by police over a specific period, which is much higher than just the number of POC brutalized by police. You would have a stronger case and more people engaged. But thanks to the irrational objection to the the phrase 'all lives matter' and any associated sentiment, that's not going to happen.

The point of the movement for Black lives is to address (and end) police brutality. Not to end it only for Black people. The reason the 'Black' part comes into it is because it disproportionately targets Black people, and because when it does so, it's much more often excused by voices such as yours.

Objections to 'all lives matter' are not rooted in the 'all lives' part. They're rooted in the phrase's origin as a means of trivializing, and its use to dismiss, concerns about racialized police violence. It's kind of like if in response to all your ravings about adjuncts' rights, someone were to repeatedly insist that that we also consider the troubles of TT faculty. Your point isn't to deny that TT faculty deserve better working conditions (or am I being too generous?), but rather to highlight the fact that one segment of the instructional population has a particularly rough deal, and that its working conditions need to be ameliorated. By repeatedly insisting that you're forgetting about TT faculty, I'm just grasping for excuses to deny the basic--and just!--reforms you're advocating for. I'm needlessly complicating things to ensure you can't get a fair shake. There are limits to the analogy, of course, but I think it mostly holds.

Let me help you you out with the soundbites version of what you are trying to say:

"Adjunct Faculty Matter!"

"All Faculty Matter!"

[mahagonny]

The point of the movement for Black lives is to address (and end) police brutality. Not to end it only for Black people. The reason the 'Black' part comes into it is because it disproportionately targets Black people, and because when it does so, it's much more often excused by voices such as yours.

Nothing about that here. https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

[jimbogumbo]

The point of the movement for Black lives is to address (and end) police brutality. Not to end it only for Black people. The reason the 'Black' part comes into it is because it disproportionately targets Black people, and because when it does so, it's much more often excused by voices such as yours.

Nothing about that here. https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

Sentence #2: Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

So, you infer from that the organization only wants to end police brutality against Blacks. You don't see a generalization on your part that is a logical fallacy?

[mahagonny]

...and it's an especially stupid name for a group that purports to have the mission of ending or reducing police brutality, if that's what it is. Because it makes the police's counterargument for them. Now they are able to say 'not only do we agree that black lives matter, we've been aware of this well before 2013 when you came along with your soapbox in 2013. That's why we've been risking our lives to be available to all communities where we're needed including urban high crime ones. Because the people there desperately need our service, living among the George Floyds of the world, and some even worse.' Whereas 'stop police brutality' would have been a specific, defendable proposition (though we know they will never do their job perfectly, there's reason to ask for improvement.)

[Parasaurolophus]

Let me help you you out with the soundbites version of what you are trying to say:

"Adjunct Faculty Matter!"

"All Faculty Matter!"

Thanks!

...and it's an especially stupid name for a group that purports to have the mission of ending or reducing police brutality, if that's what it is. Because it makes the police's counterargument for them. Now they are able to say 'not only do we agree that black lives matter, we've been aware of this well before 2013 when you came along with your soapbox in 2013. That's why we've been risking our lives to be available to all communities where we're needed including urban high crime ones. Because the people there desperately need our service, living among the George Floyds of the world, and some even worse.' Whereas 'stop police brutality' would have been a specific, defendable proposition (though we know they will never do their job perfectly, there's reason to ask for improvement.)

'Adjunct' is a stupid title for essential workers who do the bulk of an institution's teaching. But you work with what you have.

[financeguy]

Floyd (and society as a whole) were failed by the criminal justice system. This happened when they let him out of jail the early the previous times. Eight prison terms between 1997 and 2005? This shouldn't even be possible. Once you're on jail term number four, five or so within a decade, I think it's safe to say you haven't gotten the point and need to be incarcerated for longer periods of time. Drug treatment? Sure. Training? Sure. Professional non-punative environment? Sure. Just not out.

If we had a functioning criminal justice system, people like Floyd would not be interacting with cops as frequently to begin with since they would still be in jail for their last offence. Everyone I know that's a cop says its rearresting the same people over and over again. Imagine the amount of resources wasted by this continual revolving door. We talk about the cost of incarceration but not the cost of having these people out and about. Not only did Floyd himself lose his life, many business owners were destroyed and numerous citizens were injured or had their homes vandalized. All because we refuse to follow through once someone demonstrates they are a repeat offender.

[Kron3007]

Floyd (and society as a whole) were failed by the criminal justice system. This happened when they let him out of jail the early the previous times. Eight prison terms between 1997 and 2005? This shouldn't even be possible. Once you're on jail term number four, five or so within a decade, I think it's safe to say you haven't gotten the point and need to be incarcerated for longer periods of time. Drug treatment? Sure. Training? Sure. Professional non-punative environment? Sure. Just not out.

If we had a functioning criminal justice system, people like Floyd would not be interacting with cops as frequently to begin with since they would still be in jail for their last offence. Everyone I know that's a cop says its rearresting the same people over and over again. Imagine the amount of resources wasted by this continual revolving door. We talk about the cost of incarceration but not the cost of having these people out and about. Not only did Floyd himself lose his life, many business owners were destroyed and numerous citizens were injured or had their homes vandalized. All because we refuse to follow through once someone demonstrates they are a repeat offender.

I guess this raises an entirely different (yet related) issue about how to minimize recidivism, and I really dont see longer sentences as the solution. I am no expert, but my understanding is that an overly punitive approach only increases the rate of re-offense.  It may feel like the best approach, but I dont think that is supported by the data.

Many of George his crimes were pretty minor, and prison is not always the solution.  In fact, it could be argues that harsh sentences for early minor crimes can lead to escalation.  Regardless, as others have mentioned, his past crimes do not justify his death. 

[dismalist]

As a matter of arithmetic, the longer offenders are imprisoned, the fewer offenses there will be on the street.

Problem is what constitutes an offense? A large share of the incarcerated are in prison on account of the so-called War on Drugs. One hell of a lot of that is for possession, not violence.

Legalize and tax; tax and legalize.