zlacker

[return to "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate"]
1. dnissl+Tr[view] [source] 2020-07-07 16:45:38
>>tosh+(OP)
Some bright spots I've noticed in the past month or so in this area, for those who care both about justice and open debate:

- John Carmack signal boosting[1] Sarah Downey's article "This PC witch-hunt is killing free speech, and we have to fight it"[2]

- The critical comments on the obligatory "BLM" post in r/askscience[3]

- Glenn Loury's response[4] to Brown University's letter to faculty/alumni about racial justice.

- The failure[5] of a group of folks to cancel Steven Pinker over accusations of racial insensitivity.

[1] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1279105937404579841

[2] https://medium.com/@sarahadowney/this-politically-correct-wi...

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gvc7k9/black_li...

[4] https://www.city-journal.org/brown-university-letter-racism

[5] https://mobile.twitter.com/sapinker/status/12799365902367907...

◧◩
2. justin+VH[view] [source] 2020-07-07 17:52:47
>>dnissl+Tr
Carmack's comment on the Cultural Revolution was strange. The greatest problem with the Cultural Revolution, its defining characteristic in most people's minds, was all the mass murder. McCarthyism or something might have been a better historical analog to what is happening, but it would have been pretty tricky to jujitsu that example into a slam against the left, or the kids today, or whatever was being attempted there.

The article he linked to was a little peculiar. As someone who's inclined to agree with the author about the First Amendment, the poorly thought out paragraph about racism - using a link to hate crime statistics to demonstrate the low numbers of "actual racists," but then making a remark like The statement “black lives matter” is easy to agree with if you’re a decent human being, which raises some questions about why we all have so many not-decent people (just indecent, not actual racists?) in our social media feeds - distracted from the overall message.

◧◩◪
3. rayine+ra1[view] [source] 2020-07-07 20:39:00
>>justin+VH
What is “the overall message?” Is it just the plain meaning of the words? Is the idea that we need to reform the police so they stop murdering Black people?

Or is it the New York Times’ claim that “nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery?” https://mobile.twitter.com/maragay/status/116140196616729805....

Or is it that we need to “disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure,” as BLM’s website claims? https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Or is it that “institutions of white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism” are all equivalent evils that must be “abolished,” as BLM’s DC chapter proclaims? https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-an...

Or is it—as the 1619 project claims and which is now being taught in schools—the supposed historical fact that capitalism is an outgrowth of plantation slavery? https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-conspiracy-theory

Or is it applied Marxism?

> No doubt, the organization itself was quite radical from the very beginning. Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and fellow co-founder Alicia Garza as “trained Marxists” in a recently resurfaced video from 2015.

Look at how much the debate has transformed within the last month. It started out with universal condemnation of a murder committed by the police in Minnesota. Now, we are talking about tearing town statues of Abraham Lincoln: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2020/06/26/uw-... (“Students in the UW-Madison's Black student union are calling on university officials to remove the statue of the nation's 16th president.”) My high school, named after Thomas Jefferson, is thinking of renaming itself. We are debating whether the Constitution as a “pro-slavery document.”

I am pro-BLM. To me, it’s a matter of my faith, as well as my personal experience living in places like Baltimore and Philadelphia and realizing that Black people just aren’t getting a fair shake. I think people of every stripe can do something to help finish the job of reconstruction. Libertarians can pitch in to help end police abuse of minorities. Conservatives can help push forward school choice, which the majority of Black people support. Middle of the road people can agree that we need to undo the pro-confederacy monument building that happened during the KKK era.

But I also believe that our country rests on mostly admirable principles and history, and that Marxism is a recipe for suffering while capitalism is uplifting billions of people before our very eyes. I can hardly blame people who are skeptical when they are forced to chant a slogan that was coined by self-avowed Marxists. You can’t blame people for being cautious in their support of a movement that has under the same roof a majority of well-meaning people who simply want to eliminate police brutality and inequality, and a vocal minority of people who view those problems as an indictment of our entire country and it’s institutions. The far left, in characteristic fashion, has taken something most people could agree on, and pushed it further and further until normal people are forced to push back to keep society from crumbling beneath their feet. And that’s a tragedy for everyone, especially people who care about the core concept of fixing policing in America.

◧◩◪◨
4. Animat+KO1[view] [source] 2020-07-08 02:10:37
>>rayine+ra1
It started out with universal condemnation of a murder committed by the police in Minnesota.

And it's become a distraction from that. The US has a serious problem with police brutality and quality control. US cops killed 1,112 people in 2019. That's over 10x the rate for EU countries. The odds are worse if you're black, but more whites are killed by cops than blacks.

That's the problem. Statues don't kill. Flags don't kill. Cops kill.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ericma+TR1[view] [source] 2020-07-08 02:52:24
>>Animat+KO1
Yea... but let’s dive into the statistics. 1,200 deaths from cops - some unknown number justified (a shootout or whatever) and quite literally millions or tens of millions of interactions.

I think we need police reform. As a military veteran I think there is no reason that an MRAP should be on American streets, but I also think the police have pretty large responsibilities and need more training too.

We also (and I’ll say that I am a 2nd Amendment proponent - within reason) have police who have to enter into situations where the other person may be armed, which adds to the stress level.

Frankly, if you look at the stats I’m not even sure we have a police brutality problem; instead we have more of a police abuse of power problem.

Solutions that come to mind:

More training

More pay

More strict hiring requirements

Abolition of police unions

Requiring police to carry insurance

No-hire once fired or terminated from a department (generally but there are specifics here to be discussed)

Sell off and no more spending on war equipment (MRAPs, assault rifles, smoke grenades, whatever)

Mandatory body cams, lack of use results in immediate suspension without pay while an investigation takes place, and if the camera is intentionally turned off immediate termination and no ability to be rehired anywhere in the country

That’s what I would start with

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. m0zg+FW1[view] [source] 2020-07-08 03:58:06
>>ericma+TR1
> no reason that an MRAP should be on American streets

It's not _on_ American streets. I lived in the US for 20 years and I've never seen one. Likely some SWAT teams purchased them for pennies on the dollar, but I'd argue SWAT teams need them, to reduce casualties when getting close to violent action.

> assault rifles

To the best of my knowledge assault rifles are not in use by US police. AR15 is not an assault rifle.

I saw plenty in London though.

But that's nuance - people younger than, say, 35, won't understand any of it. Literally nobody is interested in the actual reform at the moment. If they were, we'd see some serious proposals by now.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Gibbon+xW3[view] [source] 2020-07-08 21:29:18
>>m0zg+FW1
> AR15 is not an assault rifle

Means you don't know what and assault riffle is.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. lliama+d24[view] [source] 2020-07-08 22:16:01
>>Gibbon+xW3
Assault rifles have selective fire (i.e. they can fire multiple bullets with each pull of the trigger). An AR15 is semi-automatic, which means only one bullet for each pull of the trigger.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. Gibbon+hg4[view] [source] 2020-07-09 00:07:59
>>lliama+d24
Assault weapons are light weight short barrelled rifles designed to be used in close quarters. That's it.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. lliama+Lk4[view] [source] 2020-07-09 00:54:38
>>Gibbon+hg4
That is a carbine. Actual assault rifles have selective fire and are heavily regulated.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. Gibbon+an4[view] [source] 2020-07-09 01:23:26
>>lliama+Lk4
You spouting politically motivated revisionism here. You can do that but I'm not signing up.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. lliama+1u4[view] [source] 2020-07-09 02:53:07
>>Gibbon+an4
The terms I am using are defined pretty clearly on Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine

You may be confusing "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" which are different categories. The AR15 does usually qualify as an "assault weapon". The definition of assault weapon is looser, and includes a number of features (such as barrel shrouds and flash suppressors") the sole purpose of which is to make the gun safer to use, and have nothing to do with making them actually more dangerous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

If you have different sources, feel free so share.

[go to top]