11-20-2019, 02:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2019, 02:36 AM by RiverNotch.)
Wait, wait, wait -- gotta own up to an honest mistake on my part, that *blue* lives matter refers to cops. I kept looking at it through a strictly racialized lens, because that is the original intent with "black lives matter", so "blue lives matter" now just reads as plain deflection. More on this later.
Rowens again demonstrates a certain, uncanny sense of clarity. The thing is it's comfort that makes white people feel like black lives matter targets *them*, rather than the institution, and makes black people perhaps seem to feel like they attack the institution without any criticality with regards to themselves. The fact is they indict the institution, which encompasses *both* sides of this debate, or perhaps neither. Again, that black people are often impoverished, or have too many relatives already punished, justly or unjustly, by the system, hence providing the necessary motivation or example for entrance into a life of crime, *does* not excuse black individuals from the crimes they commit, when they commit them; and the fact that the system was built on the actions of those that are already dead means that white people now must not be held responsible for all this.
On this matter, most white people are in a position of remoteness and relative comfort, and black people are, as individuals, not all without blame. The indictment is of the institution, the bad part of which white people as a demographic have no real part, other than in voting for the wrong people, or, even worse, condescending towards those engaged in debate. Because that is what ultimately makes "blue lives matter", "it's ok to be white", and this sort of denial of an institutional problem that is already demonstrated by a myriad works of proper empirical research so wrong: not (necessarily) that it is racist, but that it is condescending.
It is scary, isn't it? When the chaos more often seen in distant corners of the world suddenly erupts at one's doorstep. Some react to it with silence. Some react by supporting the chaos, either for sheer love of it, or because they see the truth behind the chaos. And some *condescend*, mistaking the surface of the message for what it is supposed to convey and, more importantly, to whom it is supposed to be conveyed.
Rowens is right on another point: the framing is a little skewed. "Black lives matter" is catchy, but it's not very eloquent -- in fact, it's too ambiguous. Though I think there would be less of an issue regarding it if the country were not still recovering from the recession of 2008, as well as plunging into further division and ruin due to a certain person in power. The thing is, people see with a little more clarity, or at least are more willing to be silent, when they are otherwise comfortable -- but now that other circumstances throw them out of comfort, they are liable to make scapegoats of all things strange that walk their streets.
The facts are ambiguous, at best, as to the value of this protest, and as such must be somewhat ambiguous to the value of the counterprotests, but they are not ambiguous about the institutional biases Americans face, especially black and Latino individuals. That criminals must be held responsible for their actions is a fact; that ill circumstances leading to a crime does not excuse the crime is another fact; that ill circumstances, once mitigated, make it much less likely for crimes to be committed in the first place? or, again, that prejudice *does* exist, especially through that unspoken evil the American police force still engages in, either subconsciously or consciously, *profiling*?
(2)
A riot is the language of the unheard, but the unfortunate reality of it is that riots often do more harm, not just to the unheard, but also to any bystanders around them. Now tone it down. Protests are the language of the softspoken, although the irony is their voices often seem too soft for the people they ultimately are trying to reach -- rarely the common man, unless their primary goal was to enlarge their movement, but instead people in positions of power, both politicians *and* police -- while they are too loud, too coarse, for the people immediately around them.
The goal of this protest is clearly to highlight the injustices black people face to those who inflict upon them the injustice the most, or those with the greatest capacity for changing their situation such that they face (or at least seem to face) less of this injustice. And this protest *is*, I believe, working, if only by inches: more policemen and politicians have admitted their faults, and I think some communities' police forces have changed their practices to, at the very least, *seem* like they seek to put their members to greater account.
Certainly, a conversation is being sparked, although it would be far less divisive if the preexisting political climate wasn't already divided -- and let us be clear here, the impetus for such division is far from the side now currently engaged in protest. Again, I refer to the economic downturn of 2008 -- again, I refer to your country's current president, or rather the politicians, think tanks, lobbyists, media outlets, and so on that were responsible for his rise to power, which is but one of the latest atrocities they have been committing since, say, Reagan.
At any rate, let us gloss over half of the audience this protest is supposed to reach: let's discuss cops. The fact is cop lives do matter but, again, this is far from a fight in the police's favor. The police are the ones invested by the state and the community with the power to enforce the law using *force*, as such they are the ones that need to be checked constantly. Sure, criminals must also needs be checked, but criminals already work outside the law; in the eyes of the community, they have (or at least ought to have) no legitimacy, and as such their power can and should be readily taken away from them.
It is penal justice, for a criminal to be harmed by his or her actions. It is risk, that a policeman may be harmed by his or her pursuit of penal justice. Neither of which should not, under any circumstances, be what the general public experiences. And what is the job of the police? to protect the general public *from harm*, regardless of where it comes from: the police are not called upon only to ward off or catch criminals, but also to keep protests in check, or to guide the public as to what roads they may pass.
There is a natural hazard to a policeman's job, then, and this must be accepted. But it is better that policemen experience a slightly greater risk to their lives, than even one member of the innocent members of the public being harmed by the law's actions. The former is a tragedy, but also a performance of duty, and even an inspiration; the latter, a tragedy of perhaps greater magnitude, and one that would erode the public's confidence in the police, which would clearly serve as a detriment to the performance of their duty.
Really, the problem in America is violence. Here, the interactions of the police with drug addicts and pushers is much more clearcut: all addicts and most pushers are already victims of society, performing, more often than not, mere petty crimes in pursuit of a fix. Most of these victims are poor, living in casbahs far worse than anything in America, and it has already been demonstrated that more restricted license, rather than pure pacification, is the only means by which to fix this symptom of the larger problem. The disproportionate use of force here by the police, supposedly to defend themselves, is much more clearly undue, partly because of said defencelessness by most of their victims, and partly because this is very clearly in pursuit of our own president's rather fascist means to power.
The analogy is only vaguely present, but it should be at least a touch enlightening. The problem in America, at a deeper level, is that the police are far from the only ones capable of performing such violence. And, sure, this might mean that the police must better arm themselves but, with a system on the distribution of armaments as loose as that in America, the choice becomes either the police take on a greater risk of harm to themselves -- they make the scope of their duty more comprehensive or, as Shakespeare put it, they would receive the greater share of honour -- or that the general public, but especially those already targeted by the biases inherent in the police force and the criminal justice system, accept a risk that they plainly should not be living with, at least if much of the rest of the developed, and even developing, world is to be followed.
Rowens again demonstrates a certain, uncanny sense of clarity. The thing is it's comfort that makes white people feel like black lives matter targets *them*, rather than the institution, and makes black people perhaps seem to feel like they attack the institution without any criticality with regards to themselves. The fact is they indict the institution, which encompasses *both* sides of this debate, or perhaps neither. Again, that black people are often impoverished, or have too many relatives already punished, justly or unjustly, by the system, hence providing the necessary motivation or example for entrance into a life of crime, *does* not excuse black individuals from the crimes they commit, when they commit them; and the fact that the system was built on the actions of those that are already dead means that white people now must not be held responsible for all this.
On this matter, most white people are in a position of remoteness and relative comfort, and black people are, as individuals, not all without blame. The indictment is of the institution, the bad part of which white people as a demographic have no real part, other than in voting for the wrong people, or, even worse, condescending towards those engaged in debate. Because that is what ultimately makes "blue lives matter", "it's ok to be white", and this sort of denial of an institutional problem that is already demonstrated by a myriad works of proper empirical research so wrong: not (necessarily) that it is racist, but that it is condescending.
It is scary, isn't it? When the chaos more often seen in distant corners of the world suddenly erupts at one's doorstep. Some react to it with silence. Some react by supporting the chaos, either for sheer love of it, or because they see the truth behind the chaos. And some *condescend*, mistaking the surface of the message for what it is supposed to convey and, more importantly, to whom it is supposed to be conveyed.
Rowens is right on another point: the framing is a little skewed. "Black lives matter" is catchy, but it's not very eloquent -- in fact, it's too ambiguous. Though I think there would be less of an issue regarding it if the country were not still recovering from the recession of 2008, as well as plunging into further division and ruin due to a certain person in power. The thing is, people see with a little more clarity, or at least are more willing to be silent, when they are otherwise comfortable -- but now that other circumstances throw them out of comfort, they are liable to make scapegoats of all things strange that walk their streets.
The facts are ambiguous, at best, as to the value of this protest, and as such must be somewhat ambiguous to the value of the counterprotests, but they are not ambiguous about the institutional biases Americans face, especially black and Latino individuals. That criminals must be held responsible for their actions is a fact; that ill circumstances leading to a crime does not excuse the crime is another fact; that ill circumstances, once mitigated, make it much less likely for crimes to be committed in the first place? or, again, that prejudice *does* exist, especially through that unspoken evil the American police force still engages in, either subconsciously or consciously, *profiling*?
(2)
A riot is the language of the unheard, but the unfortunate reality of it is that riots often do more harm, not just to the unheard, but also to any bystanders around them. Now tone it down. Protests are the language of the softspoken, although the irony is their voices often seem too soft for the people they ultimately are trying to reach -- rarely the common man, unless their primary goal was to enlarge their movement, but instead people in positions of power, both politicians *and* police -- while they are too loud, too coarse, for the people immediately around them.
The goal of this protest is clearly to highlight the injustices black people face to those who inflict upon them the injustice the most, or those with the greatest capacity for changing their situation such that they face (or at least seem to face) less of this injustice. And this protest *is*, I believe, working, if only by inches: more policemen and politicians have admitted their faults, and I think some communities' police forces have changed their practices to, at the very least, *seem* like they seek to put their members to greater account.
Certainly, a conversation is being sparked, although it would be far less divisive if the preexisting political climate wasn't already divided -- and let us be clear here, the impetus for such division is far from the side now currently engaged in protest. Again, I refer to the economic downturn of 2008 -- again, I refer to your country's current president, or rather the politicians, think tanks, lobbyists, media outlets, and so on that were responsible for his rise to power, which is but one of the latest atrocities they have been committing since, say, Reagan.
At any rate, let us gloss over half of the audience this protest is supposed to reach: let's discuss cops. The fact is cop lives do matter but, again, this is far from a fight in the police's favor. The police are the ones invested by the state and the community with the power to enforce the law using *force*, as such they are the ones that need to be checked constantly. Sure, criminals must also needs be checked, but criminals already work outside the law; in the eyes of the community, they have (or at least ought to have) no legitimacy, and as such their power can and should be readily taken away from them.
It is penal justice, for a criminal to be harmed by his or her actions. It is risk, that a policeman may be harmed by his or her pursuit of penal justice. Neither of which should not, under any circumstances, be what the general public experiences. And what is the job of the police? to protect the general public *from harm*, regardless of where it comes from: the police are not called upon only to ward off or catch criminals, but also to keep protests in check, or to guide the public as to what roads they may pass.
There is a natural hazard to a policeman's job, then, and this must be accepted. But it is better that policemen experience a slightly greater risk to their lives, than even one member of the innocent members of the public being harmed by the law's actions. The former is a tragedy, but also a performance of duty, and even an inspiration; the latter, a tragedy of perhaps greater magnitude, and one that would erode the public's confidence in the police, which would clearly serve as a detriment to the performance of their duty.
Really, the problem in America is violence. Here, the interactions of the police with drug addicts and pushers is much more clearcut: all addicts and most pushers are already victims of society, performing, more often than not, mere petty crimes in pursuit of a fix. Most of these victims are poor, living in casbahs far worse than anything in America, and it has already been demonstrated that more restricted license, rather than pure pacification, is the only means by which to fix this symptom of the larger problem. The disproportionate use of force here by the police, supposedly to defend themselves, is much more clearly undue, partly because of said defencelessness by most of their victims, and partly because this is very clearly in pursuit of our own president's rather fascist means to power.
The analogy is only vaguely present, but it should be at least a touch enlightening. The problem in America, at a deeper level, is that the police are far from the only ones capable of performing such violence. And, sure, this might mean that the police must better arm themselves but, with a system on the distribution of armaments as loose as that in America, the choice becomes either the police take on a greater risk of harm to themselves -- they make the scope of their duty more comprehensive or, as Shakespeare put it, they would receive the greater share of honour -- or that the general public, but especially those already targeted by the biases inherent in the police force and the criminal justice system, accept a risk that they plainly should not be living with, at least if much of the rest of the developed, and even developing, world is to be followed.