Appropriate response to rioting

[Sun_Worshiper]

Going back to the topic of this thread, here is some actual data driven analysis that speaks to the issues at hand and demonstrates the disproportionate responses police:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polices-tepid-response-to-the-capitol-breach-wasnt-an-aberration/

From the article:

"Between May 1 and November 28, 2020, authorities were more than twice as likely to attempt to break up and disperse a left-wing protest than a right-wing one. And in those situations when law enforcement chose to intervene, they were more likely to use force — 34 percent of the time with right-wing protests compared with 51 percent of the time for the left. Given when this data was collected, it predominantly reflects a difference in how police respond to Black Lives Matter, compared with how they respond to anti-mask demonstrations, pro-Trump extremists, QAnon rallies, and militia groups.

The differences in intervention weren't because BLM protests were particularly violent. ACLED found that 93 percent of the protests associated with BLM were entirely peaceful. "Even if we were to put those percent of demonstrations aside and look purely at peaceful [BLM protests], we are seeing a more heavy handed response [compared with right-wing protests]," Kishi said."

[marshwiggle]

White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.

It might be more obvious to say "the one group who it is most OK to criticize, mock, and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. publicly with impunity." The things that can be said publicly about white men would blow up the Internet and the media if they were said about any other group.

The is not evidence, it is just another claim unaccompanied by supporting data. Show me poll data, or something comparable, to substantiate the claim that whites are the most disliked group. If you don't have data then don't make the claim, or caveat the claim with a disclaimer that you have failed to cite evidence to support it. If this was part of a peer review I'd recommend rejection of your article; if it was a student paper I'd have to dock you points.

This is basic stuff folks.

Googling "too many white men":

From https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51506733

'Too many white people in here': race row at US college

From https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/books/review/mediocre-ijeoma-oluo.html

MEDIOCRE
The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America

Ftom https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-10-07/the-problem-of-surplus-white-men/:

The problem of America today is the problem of white men.

Who lies at the intersection of guns, right-wing fanaticism, pandemic and climate change denialism? Who ensures that racism continues to course through the lifeblood of the country? Who stands in the way of gender equality? Who supports foreign wars and the military-industrial complex? Who is getting hit hard by the erosion of the manufacturing base in the heartland?

White men.

I could do this all day.

[dismalist]

Forgot about who pays taxes.

[jimbogumbo]

Forgot about who pays taxes.

I forget again: who has the money?

[mahagonny]

Forgot about who pays taxes.

I forget again: who has the money?

Then again, bring back 1960 tax rates and academics with the good jobs will vote republican.

[dismalist]

Nobody paid the highest 1960 tax rates. There were tons of tax shelters.

[writingprof]

Caitlin Flanagan is a brilliant writer and far more honest than most progressives, but her new piece at The Atlantic may be the worst drivel that I have ever read. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/worst-revolution-ever/617623/

I ask seriously, is this satire?  Or can Flanagan possibly believe that this exercise in elite self-gratification is helpful?  Note to the Left: At least pretend that your hatred of Trump supporters is ideological rather than aesthetic.

[Sun_Worshiper]

White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.

It might be more obvious to say "the one group who it is most OK to criticize, mock, and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. publicly with impunity." The things that can be said publicly about white men would blow up the Internet and the media if they were said about any other group.

The is not evidence, it is just another claim unaccompanied by supporting data. Show me poll data, or something comparable, to substantiate the claim that whites are the most disliked group. If you don't have data then don't make the claim, or caveat the claim with a disclaimer that you have failed to cite evidence to support it. If this was part of a peer review I'd recommend rejection of your article; if it was a student paper I'd have to dock you points.

This is basic stuff folks.

Googling "too many white men":

From https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51506733

'Too many white people in here': race row at US college

From https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/books/review/mediocre-ijeoma-oluo.html

MEDIOCRE
The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America

Ftom https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-10-07/the-problem-of-surplus-white-men/:

The problem of America today is the problem of white men.

Who lies at the intersection of guns, right-wing fanaticism, pandemic and climate change denialism? Who ensures that racism continues to course through the lifeblood of the country? Who stands in the way of gender equality? Who supports foreign wars and the military-industrial complex? Who is getting hit hard by the erosion of the manufacturing base in the heartland?

White men.

I could do this all day.

None of this is data showing that whites are the most disliked group. Do you actually not now the difference between data and a few random op eds?

[dismalist]

I think "disliked" as a descriptor of white males is insufficient. What's going on is an attempt at a money grab from white males to be splurged on a rainbow coalition of sorts, minus 10% handling, by the Democratic party. Thus, editorials and such do the job of trying to convince a dislike.

Tax and non-tax policies will reduce the incentive for white males to work. Then tax receipts to pay for the goodies will decline. Let the beneficiaries figure out how to keep the goodies flowing. :-)

[mahagonny]

Caitlin Flanagan is a brilliant writer and far more honest than most progressives, but her new piece at The Atlantic may be the worst drivel that I have ever read. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/worst-revolution-ever/617623/

I ask seriously, is this satire?  Or can Flanagan possibly believe that this exercise in elite self-gratification is helpful?  Note to the Left: At least pretend that your hatred of Trump supporters is ideological rather than aesthetic.

Aside:
But let's not forget that while 70 million voted for Trump only a few thousand at most tried for a violent overthrow of the establishment. And how many actually believed this mayhem  was coming? I submit less than half. That may be something they should have expected, but that doesn't mean they did. It should have been OK to vote for him, if you consider a few things:
(1) politicians lie. It's part of their job. Not new. They paved the way for any particular leader of DJT's ilk, over decades.
(2) No one who wants a serious effort at control over the Southern border had any other option. There was never any real discussion about how it could be accomplished, as an alternative to what Trump does.
(3) the left has been soapboxing about the threat of racism-as-national-policy taking hold for some time, with academics leading the way.  Some of their targets have been....well, name any republican at random. All this while your typical cab driver in any American city is likely a recent emigrant from the Caribbean who, with a minimum of prompting, starts talking about how grateful he is to be able live and work here.
So why should anyone go the for negativity like what they're serving?

[Parasaurolophus]

But let's not forget that while 70 million voted for Trump only a few thousand at most tried for a violent overthrow of the establishment. And how many actually believed this mayhem  was coming? I submit less than half. That may be something they should have expected, but that doesn't mean they did.

If only you cared to be so generous when other people¹ are involved.

(1) politicians lie. It's part of their job. Not new. They paved the way for any particular leader of DJT's ilk, over decades.

Sure, but some lie a lot more than others, and tell much bigger whoppers. Consequently, some are much less trustworthy than others.

(2) No one who wants a serious effort at control over the Southern border had any other option. There was never any real discussion about how it could be accomplished, as an alternative to what Trump does.

Anyone who wants a serious effort at that but who thinks that's what Trump offered is not a very serious thinker.




¹ i.e. skin tones.

[Kron3007]

Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

Different resources for security don't necessarily affect what kind of response is prescribed. Should smashing windows and breaking down doors to enter a public building ever be, by default, something to just allow unopposed? And if there are situations where measures like tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. are appropriate, surely it shouldn't be allowed to vary by city, neighborhood, or the composition of the crowd. Those are the definition or discrimination.

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library.

From psychology, it has been firmly established that the best way to incetivize behaviour is with intermittent reinforcement. Thus, the more inconsistent the response is to rioting, the more it encourages rioters. So the fact that some riots get dealt with harshly but some get ignored for a long time means that they are going to be more frequent than if you ignored them all or dealt with them all more harshly. And given the cosrs associated with the damage done, dealing with all more harshly would be much cheaper and less disruptive to communities.

Not all riots are created equal, and should be treated appropriately for the situation.  This is like saying all crimes should be punished equally, even though there are obvious differences in their nature and severity. 

[marshwiggle]

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library.

From psychology, it has been firmly established that the best way to incetivize behaviour is with intermittent reinforcement. Thus, the more inconsistent the response is to rioting, the more it encourages rioters. So the fact that some riots get dealt with harshly but some get ignored for a long time means that they are going to be more frequent than if you ignored them all or dealt with them all more harshly. And given the cosrs associated with the damage done, dealing with all more harshly would be much cheaper and less disruptive to communities.

Not all riots are created equal, and should be treated appropriately for the situation.  This is like saying all crimes should be punished equally, even though there are obvious differences in their nature and severity.

But the point remains that the rules for what defines the level of severity and what actions are appropriate based on that need to be objectively specified and consistently applied. Making actions in the moment a political decision increases polarization because it means similar situations in different jurisdictions can have widly different responses.

[Kron3007]

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library.

From psychology, it has been firmly established that the best way to incetivize behaviour is with intermittent reinforcement. Thus, the more inconsistent the response is to rioting, the more it encourages rioters. So the fact that some riots get dealt with harshly but some get ignored for a long time means that they are going to be more frequent than if you ignored them all or dealt with them all more harshly. And given the cosrs associated with the damage done, dealing with all more harshly would be much cheaper and less disruptive to communities.

Not all riots are created equal, and should be treated appropriately for the situation.  This is like saying all crimes should be punished equally, even though there are obvious differences in their nature and severity.

But the point remains that the rules for what defines the level of severity and what actions are appropriate based on that need to be objectively specified and consistently applied. Making actions in the moment a political decision increases polarization because it means similar situations in different jurisdictions can have widly different responses.

Agreed, and a plot to storm a federal building housing the VP, VP elect, and congress, should always be stomped out regardless of location.  Just because there should be consistent rules to decide the response dosnt mean the response should be the same in all situations.  This is the problem with comparing the response here to BLM protests, where they were not storming your government.   If anything the response to BLM protests was more aggressive, when the response here should have been far more severe than any of the BLM events based on context.

[mahagonny]

(2) No one who wants a serious effort at control over the Southern border had any other option. There was never any real discussion about how it could be accomplished, as an alternative to what Trump does.

Anyone who wants a serious effort at that but who thinks that's what Trump offered is not a very serious thinker.

¹ i.e. skin tones.

Well, ditto for anyone who is incapable of a thought process about the situation independent of 'some Americans want more control of border security because they hate black and brown people.' For example we were hearing a lot of lofty pronouncements from certain politicians a few years ago, e.g. 'This is America, the melting pot with the statue of liberty welcoming foreigners. We don't build walls here to keep people out.' Well, actually we do. We had a border wall with Mexico a the time. Trump wanted sturdier one. Whatever else he does, he had a legitimate question - what do we do about this going forward? If your answer to that is 'we do nothing different for now, because the levels of illegal immigration are manageable, and anyway our hotels love the cheap undocumented labor' then OK that's one answer. But just saying 'ew don't let the racists get involved' means you're disengaged.

But let's not forget that while 70 million voted for Trump only a few thousand at most tried for a violent overthrow of the establishment. And how many actually believed this mayhem  was coming? I submit less than half. That may be something they should have expected, but that doesn't mean they did.

If only you cared to be so generous when other people¹ are involved.

¹ i.e. skin tones.

If you removed your asterisk from that statement you would have point. It's true I am only a little supportive to the BLM movement for somewhat different reasons. Whereas the Capitol Building insurrection this week was horrifying and illegal and must be dealt with with the strictest law enforcement available, I expect that is will be. Because we understand what it was.
OTOH, what the BLM people are doing (most of whom probably aren't even black) is decreeing, with widespread support "Professor Mahagonny and his colleagues need to be trained how to teach differently. Antiracistly, As we will define it. Because a middle aged black American career criminal in Minneapolis with advanced heart disease who was high on speedball died after a run in with a violent policeman."  They have mainstreamed their fiction that police have an epidemic of gunning down innocent people because they're racist. And then exploited that perception to have their particular interpretation of life in the USA and the aggressive agenda associated with that interpretation infiltrate education further.