Serious Police Brutality in the U.S.

[BlueSkiddo]

I think that it's less of a "police shoot black people because they're racist" thing and more about stereotypes and fear mongering creating a tendency towards more liberal use of "defense" against people they see as more likely to be threats because of said fear mongering. So many people I know act like every muslim or black person they see is a threat, and that they need guns to protect themselves from these people. There are more guns in the U.S. than there are people here, and I think that says a lot about us as a people, specifically how afraid we all are of what seemingly isn't even there to be afraid of.

I don't think these people are racist, I think they're afraid. People have an innate fear of things that are different, and this fear is being amplified a million times over by 24 hour news sources just looking for a story. If you've watched the nightly news recently, you know what I'm talking about. Every other story exaggerates a "threat" or trend to seem bigger than it really is. Why do you think these are popular stories? They create emotion in the people watching. Specifically, fear and anger. There are also never any actual numbers of meaningful statistics behind these reports. They just make general statements because they know you won't look into it.

Short Side Rant

As a short side note, this also happens to be basically the entire backbone of Donald Trump's campaign for the presidency. "Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, let's build a wall to keep them out". "All the muslims are looking to blow us up, let's keep track of every single one of them and prevent any from entering the U.S." He's literally just saying everyone else is a threat, elect me so they wont kill you. You have a way higher chance of dying in a car crash than anyone getting even close to killing you as a terrorist, stop being stupid And Donald Trump sure as hell isn't going to prevent people who want to commit acts of terror or mass shootings from doing so.

This is exactly what ISIS and similar terror groups want you to do. They want you to be afraid, to push away muslims, to push those muslims back so far that they have no where else to turn but to ISIS. How much effort does it take to see that? They're called terrorists because their entire concept is built on winning through terror, so why are you letting them win you short sighted idiots.

Fuck Hillary too though, she's the biggest fucking lying piece of shit I've ever seen, but at least she has some political experience. I can only hope that whoever gets elected doesn't manage to get anything done while in office.

Legit though look into those libertarian party candidates. Like, they may never get elected, but by God they actually have decent platforms to stand on. (Liberal social views, more conservative economics).

Honestly, I just wish that people could be a bit more open minded about everything and at least attempt to create informed opinions about things. Remember kids, the only thing worse than an ignorant person is a close minded ignorant person.

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

but the study actually implies that police are more likely to use deadly force against white people

which means that not only are they immune to the "stereotypes and fear mongering", it's that they might actually be working against it

at any rate, the whole "police are racist" thing doesn't hold up to facts

i mean, of course you could give some anecdotes about yada yada. you could point out specific forces or sheriffs. but as a whole? the statistics say otherwise

i.e. police are paragons of racial equality. or at least they don't like white people, which seems to be vogue right about now

 

[Myzozoa]

this is satire.............right....?

your mom is satire

like why do you think you know anything about it? Not like you offer a response. I'll help you to continue not responding.


http://lawcha.org/wordpress/2014/12...ce-created-control-working-class-poor-people/
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=121019
https://sph.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/Harris_Whiteness as Property_106HarvLRev-1.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rican-prison-helped-ignite-the-islamic-state/
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sGL04_iELikC&oi

http://globalization.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2010/09/warmaking3.pdf <- the mainstream view of the origins of the state, it has been cited well over 1000 times and is a foundational model for studying states in graduate level political science. I would just add that the state never ceases to become, it has thus always been organized crime and always will be, libertarians even say this, or pay homage to people that do at every chance. Our politicians all have substantial financial connections to figures in the current organized crime landscape, even if, I would point out, nearly every (American) international policy is determined by the 'legitimate' business interests of the energy lobby.

so try to get over how difficult it feels to come to terms with history, because history is what became our present, thats even how the legal system works, precedent, so revealing history is kind of part of accepting reality.

maybe it's satirical now to just not talk really ignorant and still have feelings (in a way, it seems that learning actually demands processing feelings), but i hope not. like, im sorry if my first response was really rushed or w.e, but i dont think it's that awful.


BlueSkiddoWeCanToo above is saying something similar to what i did. i just discussed how this fear has a use in a political technique that has certain historical deployments and predictable consequences.

I have always maintained that 'strange', 'exceptional', often controversial 'events' (if indeed what is being alleged can have taken place), are not also unexplainable or even unpredictable. And that the not-at-all blind fumbling that is allowed to take place in the aftermath of such 'events' demands a certain un-seeing that is often enforced through physical violence. Like yeah, I would also forget what happened is if what happened was my government came and beat up people protesting against a policy, it would be in my interests to forget that policy was a thing real fast.

you're not even gonna miss me when donald trump passes the patriot act 2?

 

[BlueSkiddo]

but the study actually implies that police are more likely to use deadly force against white people

which means that not only are they immune to the "stereotypes and fear mongering", it's that they might actually be working against it

at any rate, the whole "police are racist" thing doesn't hold up to facts

i mean, of course you could give some anecdotes about yada yada. you could point out specific forces or sheriffs. but as a whole? the statistics say otherwise

i.e. police are paragons of racial equality. or at least they don't like white people, which seems to be vogue right about now

Well first off, the paper implies no such thing. The very first paragraph of the paper states:

"This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."

This would imply that there is no difference in the number of white vs. minority shootings, not that they're more likely to use deadly force against white people. Also, saying that they use deadly force evenly does not account for the fact that, as stated by your source, "blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police". Granted, this does not mean that the force was excessive or unnecessary on every occasion.

You also have to consider the events leading up to these shootings. You cannot group police officers killing an arm man with a hostage into the same group with people who were shot entirely based on the suspicions of an officer or his best judgments. The background behind the shootings is extremely important, as most, if not all of the shootings which are reported on in the media and cause uproars among the communities are ones in which the use of deadly force was seen as unnecessary for the situation.

It is also worth mentioning that a majority of the paper's information on officer involved shootings comes from only Houston, Texas, which is not a large sampling to base findings off of. I would suggest that everyone read the paper, however, as it is a very good read and does present a lot of viable information on the topic, even if people are going to do whatever they want with it apparently.

Also, you literally said nothing in that entire post besides that first statement worth noting. If you're going to use sources and then proceed to make statements of opinion, not fact, then your word means nothing.

Edit: Myzozoa please don't include me in your entirely outlandish arguments.

 

[sunny004]

Yes sunny your poor about grand juries would be pertinent if in fact there was 0 bias in the people of America and only bias in the justice system itself. But there is bias in America and its pretty blatantly extenuated by the media. Watch the Dallas coverage as opposed to the Charleston shooting coverage or the myriad of shooting coverages else where. If it's a cop you learn he was Scott mcleary father of 4 recently married was a Boy Scout owned a dog and did bbq at the church as opposed to unnamed black man #16 whose descriptors are "unarmed", and "fleeing" and is also followed by either a rap sheet or the suspected crime he had committed.

1) The criminal justice system is inherently designed to allow as little bias as possible. This is why lawyers have the authority to dismiss any potential juror they feel won't give a fair and unbiased judgement. The fact remains that the officers that weren't indicted or were given Not Guilty rulings committed no crimes under US law. (Not saying that they did was right, just saying they didn't commit a criminal act). Before the witch hunt begins, please read the rest of my post so you don't think I won't address the rest of the issue.

2) In regards to media coverage, you need to/should know that the media is profit-driven. Therefore, they will only put exciting, new, and different news on their programs, and not stuff that they feel will be different. Think of it this way: Would you rather watch a news program where you can basically predict what they will be showing, or a news program with varying content? This is the reason why you don't see things like campus sexual assault, everyday murder, burglary, traffic offenses, etc. on the news. Unfortunately, this issue has reached the point to which in the eyes of people who don't really care (or care somewhat but is not a major part of their life), is not exciting or attention-grabbing to them, leading to less extensive media coverage because it is no longer as profitable to cover these stories extensively. On the other hand, the Dallas shooting was the first of its kind and somewhat unprecedented (also not to mention the fact that the people who are pro-cops and anti-BLM are paying more attention). This should only go to show the extent of the problems that we as a country have in the relationship between the Black community and Law Enforcement.

Anyway, back to my first point. Because the fact remains that the officers that weren't convicted broke no US law, you may be asking: "Well how the f**k do we fix this, then?" Elections MATTER, people, and not just the president. Congressmen, both federal and local, create the laws that could lead to reducing police violence. Another main issue I see is not particularly with the officers themselves, but the overly aggressive police training. By election a new police commissioner and sheriff, you could make sure that you could actually remove the racist cops while making sure that cops with good intentions don't kill other unarmed people. And yes, if you still insist there is bias in the Criminal Justice system, you can elect a new county judge or state supreme court justice (if that applies). So yeah actually vote ppl and get your lazy friends to vote as well! :D

***Before you witchhunt me lol please ask actual questions to why I say this so you get an idea of where I'm coming from; I may have made the points I'm trying to make a bit difficult to understand. Thanks!***

 

[vonFiedler]

but the study actually implies that police are more likely to use deadly force against white people

which means that not only are they immune to the "stereotypes and fear mongering", it's that they might actually be working against it

at any rate, the whole "police are racist" thing doesn't hold up to facts

i mean, of course you could give some anecdotes about yada yada. you could point out specific forces or sheriffs. but as a whole? the statistics say otherwise

i.e. police are paragons of racial equality. or at least they don't like white people, which seems to be vogue right about now

"First, all but one dataset was provided by a select group of police departments. It is possible that these departments only supplied the data because they are either enlightened or were not concerned about what the analysis would reveal. In essence, this is equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing to supply a researcher with their Human Resources data!"

but way to cherry pick

As illustrated by the study itself, studies don't mean anything until they go through the scientific process which involves multiple other groups running the same study to see if they get the same results and weed out the kind of data bias that the researcher admits to.

 

[Myzozoa]

my apologies, i forgot the most important links, the ones where you get mainstream political sciences naming and shaming the us as an oligarchy, that completes the sources needed to substantiate claims in my first post:

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...2864E5B4.journals?fromPage=online&aid=6677116
http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...95a.pdf&code=c388567dfb50a61b00062d1042e9273c
hope these work, otherwise follow from http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

 

[TheValkyries]

Myzozoa casually being a fucking legend and providing sources and is being called outlandish for it... Standard fare I guess.

Cops inherently function as state sanctioned escalation of force designed to commit violence on their victims. Be it through predatory hunting for fines and sanctions or for literal raw force in non violent situations. This idea that they are noble and shield us from harm as their primary job ignores history and reality.

 

[ChrystalFalchion]

I saw an interesting article about police brutality in the army. It was written by one of those alternate media sites, but they did cite credible sources for their data.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/

 

[eden]

Police brutality, gun violence, bad presidential candidates, at some point you have to stop believing in coincidences and start thinking that us Americans are masochistic. Is there a reason police brutality has for the most part, a norm rather than an unfortunate occurrence. Does it have to do with the police being militarized to some extent? To the proliferation of guns among a wide population? Why do countries like the UK have less/negligible police violence, gun incidents? I'm honestly very curious about this, and would like to know why we keep on repeating the same mistakes. We get carried away in the status quo, fasr too often for the country of the "free".

 

[Chou Toshio]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/policing-the-police/

It's real, and it's racially biased-- and the result of a complex mix of historical, social, logistic, and economic reasons all compounding on each other.
-historical racial discrimination and harassment leaving distrust in communities that are amplified with years of much the same
-prominance of drugs and guns in the US compounding crime, increasing danger for policeman, and therefore fear within the police
-years of division between class and race leading to divides in communities (leading to communities with both much higher crime/gang activity and underfunded police forces)
-racial mix of cops (though I think the other factors result in conditions where even black/Hispanic cops find themselves as part of the establishment)
-stereotypes amplifying perceptions contributing to the problems

 

[dice]

i'm not sure how to succinctly lay out my thoughts.. police are another pillar of white privilege that perpetuate violence and division, particularly among marginalized groups. poc and latinx are targets while woc and lgbtq receive improper treatment in prisons. whites, especially those who are affluent, are often able to avoid imprisonment by virtue of this privilege.

bail enables the privileged an out while it further binds poor poc and makes them practically unemployable after jail.

whites are less likely to be searched. policies like nyc's stop and frisk prey on latinx folks and poc. statistics showed that at these groups were inexplicably searched at a shocking 87% rate in 2011 with several reports that over 85% of those stopped were innocent.

white flight has allowed the privileged to live in areas which are whitewashed. in turn, police target these areas less and there are less structural barriers which inhibit the citizens like poor housing, education, and health services.

i could go on but it's pretty evident that police facilitate oppression and enable privilege. and this is ignoring the duplicitous and often illegal tactics that police employ on their targets. one of the most frequent is plea bargains. this is coercion in its finest, and often police thinly veil threats when interrogating suspects. it's especially pushed if police lack evidence to lock up a suspect and thus they are pushed into admitting guilt forcefully when there is insufficient evidence to even hold them.

i heavily agree with many of myzo's assertions.

the system is flawed and there should be more conversations as to how to abolish / improve the current police system. the most prolific narrative among the privileged is one of police positivity. outspoken conservatives like tomi lahren speak of the dangers of blm instead of the dangers of the oppressors. these oppressors systematically create a culture of violence and the oppressed inevitably respond and explode. jim crow lingers.

the first step is making people aware of this very sad reality. police shouldn't just be protectors of the affluent whites. police shouldn't be another form of institutionalized racism that plagues america. police shouldn't create an anxiety among people and force parents to teach their children how to not be killed by them. police shouldn't be above the law and enable brutality and violence. we need to expand the conversation to fix this system which is destructive to the country.

 

[Ampharos]

I agree that eliminating privatization of the prison system is a necessary step, there's absolutely no reason for a nation to leave a large portion of its criminal justice system in the hands of for-profit corporations. Nothing can stay impartial or unbiased when money's involved.

that being said i'm not entirely sure i understand the weird ad hominem argument against Dice? Like... white privilege is indisputably a thing that exists. The justice system, whether intentionally or otherwise, is much kinder to whites than it is to the rest of society. Just because you got fined for weed doesn't mean you're being oppressed - if you were black you may very well have been jailed for possession, because that's how this shit works.

Myzo's argument against the police as an institution is clearly well-thought out and well-sourced, and it raises many interesting points, but my biggest issue with it is that it just isn't going to happen - not anytime soon, anyways. No US political figure is going to suggest abolishing the police, it would be career suicide, which basically rules out any nonviolent means for eliminating them as an organization. Even if I thought a violent anti-police uprising was a good idea (I don't), it would never succeed simply due to how militarized the US police force has become. We would need the actual military to step in, and uh... no thanks. Too much death for my taste.

Reform is definitely needed. As a native Dallas-area resident, I can tell you firsthand that the DPD has been taking steps in the right direction ever since Chief Brown took over. They're pretty much THE role models of community policing, and his training methods have drastically lessened brutality within his department. He hasn't COMPLETELY eliminated excessive use of force, but it's gone down by an incredible amount. Obviously any amount is bad lol, but social progress takes time. If baby steps is the best we can do at this point, I'll settle for baby steps.

that being said i'm basically just a giant ball of privilege so i may just not have enough perspective on this issue

side note: can we stop using the term "sjw", especially in an insulting/condescending manner? it basically shows that you can't be bothered to read someone's post because you think they care too much about social issues or something, and it's in no way a good argument against any sort of point whatsoever

 

[arugalove]

interesting read:

http://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-origins-american-policing

 

[arugalove]

drug dealers deserve to die

lol thanks mr. duterte


a couple of meta-issues, since myzo et al. have done a really good job of hitting the substantive points:

- i'm kinda miffed by the poll tbh, trans woc and indigenous folks are probably the likeliest to be targets for state violence, but police murder of black men just happens to be somewhat more visible than the violence against those groups. i get where op was going with this but i feel like it's weirdly leading and really boxes in the discussion in a way i don't think is very useful, which brings me to
- i think the way that the discussion is going right now is unlikely to be very educational. at best, i don't think that adversarial communication is very likely to convince someone that "the police are racist," and at worst i think trying to do so might be frustrating enough to ruin your day or even be actively bad for your mental health. (part of this has to do with relying on social science to prove that, say, black people are disproportionately targets of state violence, when the vast majority of black people already know that. our choice to put epistemic authority into science being "objective" over personal experience is part of the problem here. but obviously a lot of people are killing it with reviewing the academic literature on the police and so forth so i'm not entirely ruling that out as a valuable avenue for discussion.) i think it might be beneficial to try some different, more rhetorically creative approaches. history is a great one; it's usually pretty accessible, it gets you in the feels, and it can lead to really productive/nuanced forms of debate. or at least it makes it harder for someone who's obviously bullshitting to hide behind "objectivity" or logic or whatever

 

[ManOfMany]

lol thanks mr. duterte


a couple of meta-issues, since myzo et al. have done a really good job of hitting the substantive points:

- i'm kinda miffed by the poll tbh, trans woc and indigenous folks are probably the likeliest to be targets for state violence, but police murder of black men just happens to be somewhat more visible than the violence against those groups. i get where op was going with this but i feel like it's weirdly leading and really boxes in the discussion in a way i don't think is very useful, which brings me to
- i think the way that the discussion is going right now is unlikely to be very educational. at best, i don't think that adversarial communication is very likely to convince someone that "the police are racist," and at worst i think trying to do so might be frustrating enough to ruin your day or even be actively bad for your mental health. (part of this has to do with relying on social science to prove that, say, black people are disproportionately targets of state violence, when the vast majority of black people already know that. our choice to put epistemic authority into science being "objective" over personal experience is part of the problem here. but obviously a lot of people are killing it with reviewing the academic literature on the police and so forth so i'm not entirely ruling that out as a valuable avenue for discussion.) i think it might be beneficial to try some different, more rhetorically creative approaches. history is a great one; it's usually pretty accessible, it gets you in the feels, and it can lead to really productive/nuanced forms of debate. or at least it makes it harder for someone who's obviously bullshitting to hide behind "objectivity" or logic or whatever

Umm, do you have some sources to back up your claims because I've never heard this anywhere else...Statistics and countless personal anecdotes from black men show that police profiling them is a regular occurence. I can't imagine police seeing woman of color as "threats" as they do for black men. Also I doubt most police could tell whether a person is indigenous or not from a distance walking the streets and then proceed to identify them as a threat, as they do for black men (I agree native reservations have been screwed over by the state but that has nothing to do with the poll question?)

Also, Myozoa's "abolish the police" solution isn't just unfeasible, it's insane. Crime is already pretty rampant in poorer neighborhoods and without the police it would get way worse. Not to mention the automobile accidents would be almost uncontrollable without people having fear of getting ticketed and all. I think often underestimate just how much police do for us

 

[arugalove]

Umm, do you have some sources to back up your claims because I've never heard this anywhere else...Statistics and countless personal anecdotes from black men show that police profiling them is a regular occurence. I can't imagine police seeing woman of color as "threats" as they do for black men. Also I doubt most police could tell whether a person is indigenous or not from a distance walking the streets and then proceed to identify them as a threat, as they do for black men (I agree native reservations have been screwed over by the state but that has nothing to do with the poll question?)

Also, Myozoa's "abolish the police" solution isn't just unfeasible, it's insane. Crime is already pretty rampant in poorer neighborhoods and without the police it would get way worse. Not to mention the automobile accidents would be almost uncontrollable without people having fear of getting ticketed and all. I think often underestimate just how much police do for us

re: indigenous ppl getting killed by the police: http://www.docs.lakotalaw.org/reports/Native Lives Matter PDF.pdf
re: trans womxn of color getting killed by police: http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/12/whose-lives-matter-trans-women-color-police-violence/

keep in mind that the statistics you're asking for are, especially in the latter case, kinda hard to produce in light of the fact that, you know, it's not like there's an option to check "trans" on the census.

 

[Minwu]

I would imagine the ease of identifying a native person is not as impactful as the sheer scale of police presence on and around reservations, which in and of itself is racialized brutality and very relevant to the poll question.

 

[Aldaron]

i really want to know what happens after you abolish the police lol

correct me if i am wrong Myzozoa, but a lot of your arguments against the police are based, on a fundamental level, with a disagreement to the concept of a "state" (or at least the USA's implementation of the state)

but i'm pretty sure a bunch of the people arguing against you atm in this topic are arguing with the assumption that the USA's state is the base; seriously what do you do if the USA's state remains the same and you abolish the police?

i dont think your proposals make any sense without an additional abolishing / restructuring of the state, but please, feel free to show me i am incorrect in this assumption. if you're only suggesting an abolishing of the police with abolishing the state / drastic restructuring of the state then i dont really understand why you're bothering...because you know that won't happen lol

i'm not sure about the rest of you, but i would much rather a police force that is possibly what you describe it to be myzozoa in the current USA than no police force in the current USA...the idea of a bunch of gun-toting crazies able to basically, for all intents and purposes, do what they want without at least some fear of the police is waaaayyyyyyyy more terrifying to me than the concept of an organized force that, the majority of the time, is reigned in by the state, and the majority of the time doesn't needlessly kill (of course the latter happens, not arguing it doesnt)

 

[arugalove]

well the argument is to abolish the police in their current/historical form. there are many possible alternatives, but one that has already seen some field testing is a "community policing" model, wherein the police prioritize building relationships with the community and help to change the structural causes of crime, rather than to focus on making arrests. richmond, CA has implemented a community policing model, and they haven't had a police officer OR community fatality since 2008 iirc. http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/submissions/Magnus_Chris_Testimony.pdf

 

[arugalove]

(chris magnus is the richmond chief)

 

[macle]

http://wsvn.com/news/local/video-shows-moments-before-north-miami-police-shot-unarmed-man/

lul cops

 

[Myzozoa]

arugalove if it's bad for my mental health, my mental health has been bad and no one has been speaking up. I don't get to choose to not be crazy? Or Personal experience is not being disavowed at all, on the contrary I am presenting these experiences in a safer way by presenting them as aggregated in historical accounts and situating them within a framework that can name victims and perpetrators. In this knowledge situation, though representation of experiences is limited to the mention of its diversity, on the other hand, no one's first hand experience is being called into question... except for, again, with reference to the task of the identification of victims and perpetrators.


Like idk if you're a black person or a trans person or an indigenous person, but if you're not, or even if you are (since im a trans person and I do this), ask yourself if youre 'really' saving your mental health by avoiding some action that presents itself, even if it is only posting in a thread somewhere in whatever way you can. Read about sick woman theory. I know I have really able-ist rhetorical tendencies here, but I also believe that self-care may have become a norm that consists in regulating bodies and that sometimes I know I say to myself "Well, how agoraphobic am I really going to act?", or I myself wondering "Who will go to the rally/protest/planning meeting for the agoraphobic people?" Maybe I should? It is well-known that ability-disability is a profit generating narrative within capitalism. I maintain that the discourse of self-care has positioned itself as part of a health aesthetic that should be examined critically by certain actors, 'dont just stop checking your privilege'.

I really believe in racism, I believe it is inside our laws and our norms, thus white persons and non-white persons that imitate white people can take steps to address it.

If you think that specifically black people's personal experiences are whats required in a thread like this. I refuse this, and think this is a very unhealthy attitude within a capitalist political moment. As always I would at least remind you that:

"You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.
You don't have to watch the video.

@!^-216"

I would add, you dont have to post in the thread, or on facebook. i mean i feel like this should go without saying. you dont have to get it up for your white/moderate friends who are just starting to realize 'oh shit, this racism stuff isn't just some tumblr shit after all', you dont have to like their statuses.

But, I always, always remind you, as a mental health care 'professional', that participating in direct political actions, which may include social media/w.e but not really, is actually considered a 'safe' coping skill, even a very good, healthy, coping skill. It just happens to not be safe, cause of you know, the violence that accompanies politics.

we need to listen to black people, which may also demand not forcing them to speak. Black bodies are already made to speak, we just don't listen to their words.

I don't have a problem accepting poc leadership... and though I may be tokenizing at times, I can also do the work of explaining these issues to other white people. I am quite privileged after all.

http://www.goldenwrites.com/whiteprivilege.htm

http://www.openanthropology.org/fanonviolence.htm

although it may seem like social scientific evidence is being authorized above experience, actually the attempt was to authorize the diversity of experiences at all, in the first place, by using historical/scientific data rather than just pointing out/alleging that 'all poc know that racism exists' or 'all black men know that black men are more likely to be criminalized'.

Because it actually hurts a lot more, and would be that much more confusing for the audience, for me to post a link to a kanye west video. Or to a season 1 of Treme. i used to use quotes from treme in my sig btw:

"Never thought I'd come back to see even this much of it.
This goddamn bridge.
Gretna police standin' there with their guns out, Waiting to make us walk the hell back.
And here we are, drivin' the other way. Like it didn't even happen.
-You don't have to stay.
Just drop me and turn around.
I'll be fine."

emphasis mine

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-bridge-to-gretna/ (warning contains a cop talking a lot)



Is that whats needed? Like an invocation of hurricane katrina?

im crying now.

Aldaron, my problem here is not with a concept of a state at all, it is with black fungibility within capitalism, i.e capitalism finds infinite use for black bodies, which does serve some political ends of course. I maintain that these ends are not democratic or pluralistic.

"
I feel sadness for the families of the cops who were killed especially the brotha's family who was a cop (montrell jackson) who was gunned down in in the colonial settlement of "baton rouge"... I am also sad that the infinite uses of blackness (black fungibility) within capitalism perpetuates black folx being used as not only the victims of state violence but simultaneously (in the case of mr jackson) as modern day slave overseers (read:cops). Jacksons death notes the precarious position black law enforcement finds itself: simultaneously the victims to and harbingers of state violence against the black community in so called "baton rouge".

While my heart goes out to his family and those that loved him I would be amiss if I didnt say that Montrell Jackson, a cop, did in fact perpetuate state violence against his own people for monetary gain on a daily basis as a cop... and while I dont wish death on any person, I do not value his life over other victims of state violence; I think it is more important for me to remember and think on all the continuous , unknown victims of state violence through death and disposability that we may never know that were effected by his "job"as a police officer... how many lives of folx in the colonial occupation of " baton rouge" alone were cut short through his active enforcement of racist state policies ...policies that he was complicit to in terms of policing, imprisonment, drug laws,etc etc ) ??? THIS type of ongoing genocide is my focus this evening... not on eulogizing modern day slave overseers of the state...
"



It really depends on your political orientation with regards to what it means to get rid of police. If you're a progressive you play the legal game, decriminalize drugs, change appeal procedures, 3 strikes laws, etc, unfortunately capitalism/politics is always ahead of you, that is what I hinted at when I said the worst thing about the police is that they exist at all in the first place. I'm a bit more of a radical, I prefer abolition of solitary confinement as an immediate step in a process of prison abolition that replaces the police with (unarmed) crisis interventionists trained in de-escalation techniques and familiarized with the community, expansions of medical and counseling services in place of prisons; in the place of a war on terror or war on drugs, wars on climate change and homelessness. People like a good war, I am told.



I mean you're not gonna get me to come out and say it aldaron... I'm not a beginner, amateur, or local at politics. and i dont talk about politics with beginners, amateurs, or locals. except when i post on these forums maybe. thats what the vanilla-isis conservatives do aldaron, they come out and say it. I don't come out and say it, babe. if you say it you lose, thats why free speech is the last resort of losers, 'you're censoring me'. I don't lose, I won, and so I have to continue to be careful.

I question if those 'taking the base as the US state' (careful aldaron with this 'base' talk you might get accused of 'cultural marxism' :p) are fully aware of the history of U.S colonialism and slavery and specifically I strongly suggest looking a bit further into the pages of the link above called 'whiteness as property', it is a legal review, not some piece of pure theory. I sort of 'resent' you taking my opposition to police as conceptual or theoretical, as I maintain it is based in historical and psychological evidence. As I mentioned, read the declaration of independence, it is pretty obvious the 'founding fathers' imagined the american citizen as a white man who was invested in economically displacing native americans and in the slave trade. The legal, political, and psychological implications of this history are sometimes difficult to reveal, but it is vital.

Implying there is some conceptual disagreement taking place obfuscates that I am actually discontent with events that are taking place and have taken place and that there can be little disagreement about these things happening, they are 'facts' even. The implication, you may already be aware, is that when you talk about the police, or perhaps 'the state' you make mention of it divorced from its reality, taken as a concept with an abstract necessity, where as I have nothing to say about a concept of police, state, etc, only about their history, or it's factual existence (sorry if this weirdly 'you vs me', i dont mean anything hostile by it). I will repeat: the fact of the police is the worst thing about them, they already happened. There is no concept of police to be grappled with at all here. And so it is unsurprising that the police turn out to be unnecessary, for what we suppose the police are needed for, the ends they serve to instantiate, I claim that these ends are either, not good , or else, that the things the police actually do and have done turn out to not serve these ends. 'Safety' and 'security' are prominent terms within the american political lexicon's 'new speak', I maintain that our communities and particularly democracies need to be made safe from militarized police forces and secured against neocolonial violence, but when we talk about police bringing safety to communities it is clear that we should not confuse the safety the police provide with these types I just mentioned as preferable, and why would we value whatever the police does provide, if anything preferable, over these other securities?

The question is not what is the police or what is the state, or at least I can say for myself that I have no doubts about what these things consist of, or how they function, from nearly any view or angle tbh. But who do these things serve? who is protected? if the police protect you from me, who is gonna protect me from the police? that is the question I hope can be grappled with? protect and serve who? I say they protect and serve the aristocracy. In this account the police are perpetrators and absence in a community signals victims, and profits. I wish I could give a pluralistic account of the police, but such history does not exist.

It is infinitely frustrating to be perceived as an idealist, because my accounts of political phenomena are historical and evidence based, and inevitably contain a flair for 'cruel optimism'. Cruel optimism is neither negative criticism, which one could claim offers no positive project (i.e, an alternative to the police), nor a stance of moral judgement. It does track changes and note complexities. It is critical of liberal idealism, and tends towards a sort of realist-centering assessment of actors as well as ideologies:

"Her newest monograph, Cruel Optimism, was published in October, 2011, by Duke University Press. This book works across the U.S. and Europe to assess the level of contemporary crisis as neoliberalism wears away the fantasies of upward mobility associated with the liberal state.[1] Cruel optimism manifests as a relational dynamic which individuals create attachment as “clusters of promises” towards desired object-ideas even when they inhibit the conditions for flourishing and fulfilling such promises. Maintaining attachments that sustain the good life fantasy, no matter how injurious or cruel these attachments may be, allows people to make it through day-to-day life when the day-to-day has become unlivable.[2] Elaborating on the specific dynamics of cruel optimism, Lauren Berlant emphasizes and maintains that it is not the object itself, but rather the relationship: "A relation of cruel optimism is a double-bind in which your attachment to an object sustains you in life at the same time as that object is actually a threat to your flourishing. So you can’t say that there are objects that have the quality of cruelty or not cruelty, it’s how you have the relationship to them. Like it might be that being in a couple is not a relation of cruel optimism for you, because being in a couple actually makes you feel like you have a grounding in the world, whereas for other people, being in a couple might be, on the one hand, a relief from loneliness, and on he other hand, the overpresence of one person who has to bear the burden of satisfying all your needs. So it’s not the object that’s the problem, but how we learn to be in relation."[3]

It would be preferable for the local constabulary to not be bound to a set of neocolonial legal forms, the affect/ articulated aim of which is economic displacement. <-that is what i will say on the subject of any disagreement about the concept of the US state in this thread.



btw im still laughing at the person who said we need police for automobiles, str8 missed it entirely. keep driving ur hummers yall, nothing changes right? least of all the climate.

i can track historical changes thats why i think changes can still be made.

http://abahlali.org/files/__Black_Skin__White_Masks__Pluto_Classics_.pdf

"I sincerely believe that a subjective experience can be understood by others; and it would give me no pleasure to announce that the black problem is my problem and mine alone and that it is up to me to study it. "

I don't expect anyone to read all these links which amount to at least 3 full length works and more, but arugalove i think you both let people off too easily and make it seem quite a task to engage in these issues at the same time...

which would be the case if the goal was to convince some other poster or reader, but that isn't my goal. they have to convince themselves


w.e just gonna post since macle baited it.

 

[JALMONT]

The Declaration itself may refer to american citizens as the white man, but I'm not sure it's really fair to jump to "the founding fathers imagined the american citizen as a white man who was invested in economically displacing native americans and in the slave trade." I feel like that sort of conclusion ignores a lot of the context of the Declaration, where even then you have the south and north at odds with each other with regards to slavery. I think there's a very compelling argument to be made that many of the Fathers probably did not want slavery but were forced to acquiesce to it in order to create the United States as we know them. Perhaps it might be said that acquiescing to such a demand was the wrong decision that has led to where we are today, I'm just not sure it's so clear cut that the US was built upon slavery.

I feel like any objections I may have will be missing the point of what myzozoa is saying or perhaps I haven't read it thoroughly enough, but I just wonder how crime plays into this conception of the police. When the police arrest someone for shoplifting or credit card fraud, are they protecting the aristocracy then? I suppose the answer is yes, but is it still yes if the victim is a small-business owner, or a black American? When the police solve a murder, how is that protecting the aristocracy?

Maybe the issue is that I'm looking into the smaller actions of the police that are community-oriented, when myzozoa is referring to the overall system. I just don't think I agree that the ends that the police serve are bad or that they are unnecessary or whatever.

 

[Myzozoa]

I feel like any objections I may have will be missing the point of what myzozoa is saying or perhaps I haven't read it thoroughly enough, but I just wonder how crime plays into this conception of the police. When the police arrest someone for shoplifting or credit card fraud, are they protecting the aristocracy then? I suppose the answer is yes, but is it still yes if the victim is a small-business owner, or a black American? When the police solve a murder, how is that protecting the aristocracy?

'for profit prisons' see my first post. there were also two words i used "protect and serve", "serve". idk how this is a question. the small business owner pays rent to the aristocracy. or taxes to a state that is in the hands of an aristocracy. the small business owner is only one fuck up, a law suit for example, away, from being the person attempting to shoplift. theyre both victims of the aristocracy. 'their taxes pay for the police', is what you might here a libertarian say, theyre already being stolen from before the shoplifter even enters the scene.

the shoplifter and shop owner are both made victims, the shop owner is stolen from do to the lack in the individual shoplifter left by the coerced/exploitative extraction of labor and blood from their body. the police enter the scene and turn them against each other on the basis of the law of property/profit, a huge portion of which is to be delivered to the apparatus of the oligarchs, which the police as I have said over and over again, belong to.

oml

get some imagination because no one pays me to be yours, ty.

editted: for further examples. this is actually nothing hard. like i know this might seem unfamiliar and discomforting, but this is actually really common knowledge, seriously, and once again libertarians say this same shit all the time.

you're 'community oriented'? nope, valuing a 'small business owner' that functions as a renter to, and thus a victim, of a corporate holding or w.e in the process of extracting wealth from a community, more than a shoplifter, is not being community oriented lol. that is ridiculous. but does show an aristocratic disposition in you.