Black Lives Matter Chicago Organizer Defends Looting: 'That's Reparations'

[Darth Wedgius]

https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-chicago-defends-looting-reparations-1524502

Apparently looting Gucci helps people get fed. I've heard they have good taste.

Even Newsweek is starting to see through this scam. That's sort of sad.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Hopefully the black American civil rights movement doesn't go down the drain after this.

[ProfessorDetective]

And this is why the battle is practically up a nintey-degree brick wall.

Now, let's be real, nine folks out of ten have picked a side already (police are out of control and need to be reigned in/police eally need a LONGER leash) so actually convincing folks one way or another is not likely. Anyone who wasn't listening wasn't going to anyway. But with everything that's happening, people who WERE listening are going to start tuning it out. Then it's all lost. A lot of this was instigated by vindictive officers or through false flag ops, but a lot of it is idiots who think they're 'fighting the good fight' or psychos profiting off the melee (I bet you at least ONE of the fire bombing was a case of opportunistic insurance fraud).

I want the departments dialed back (not abolished, but restructured and rebugeted) and I want every corrupt, xenophobic, cowboy cop off the streets. I don't think this is the way to do it. But I also know... that none of us would have paid them any attention if it HAD stayed peaceful...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

And this is why the battle is practically up a nintey-degree brick wall.

I agreed with every keystroke in that post.

As far as the battle as far as this thread is concerned though, now that you bring it up, what is the point of this thread in the grand scheme of things?

Wedgius will poke fun at pretty regularly at pretty outlandish things coming out of the black power movement, but what's the ultimate takeaway supposed to be, considering the positions? Like we're just supposed to change our minds about civil liberties when people voice on behalf of a movement irrationally?

[G-Man]

Now, let's be real, nine folks out of ten have picked a side already (police are out of control and need to be reigned in/police really need a LONGER leash) so actually convincing folks one way or another is not likely. Anyone who wasn't listening wasn't going to anyway.

I have a more nuanced position. I think that police reforms ought to be based on data, and that we need to determine what the factors are that cause unwarranted shootings, and then we need to work on how to fix them.

I also think that we need to understand the tension between type I and type II errors (e.g. mistaking an unarmed suspect for a suspect who has a gun vs. mistaking a suspect who has a gun for an unarmed suspect).

We also need to deal with the fact that blacks have very high crime rates, and much of the racial discrepancy we see is due to this. And much of the "ACAB" meme or the "cops are racist occupiers" come from people who basically support crime. That is, they think that theft, robbery, assault, etc. ought to be winked at.

Also, the Republicans have been willing to work with Democrats to push police reform, so it's not like anyone is pushing for "make police less accountable."

Basically, we need to reign in police abuse by seeing what abuses are actually common, what the nature of those abuses are, and what will actually ameliorate those abuses. Instead, we fit the situation into the current "anti-racist" narrative, and therefore focus not on reducing abuse but on punishing cops in general. Moreover, we focus on "racism" more than on dealing with abuse in general, which means that we do not focus on other factors of police abuse.

There's a paper that indicates that when the Department of Justice investigates a police department due to statistical evidence of abuse, the crime rate winds up following the same trajectory after the investigation is done that it was already following. But if the investigation is driven by a viral video, usually crime skyrockets during and after the investigation.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27324.pdf

The problem is people using anecdotal events to push a narrative, rather than actually analyzing what the situation is and how to fix it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Basically, we need to reign in police abuse by seeing what abuses are actually common, what the nature of those abuses are, and what will actually ameliorate those abuses. Instead, we fit the situation into the current "anti-racist" narrative, and therefore focus not on reducing abuse but on punishing cops in general. Moreover, we focus on "racism" more than on dealing with abuse in general, which means that we do not focus on other factors of police abuse.

There's a paper that indicates that when the Department of Justice investigates a police department due to statistical evidence of abuse, the crime rate winds up following the same trajectory after the investigation is done that it was already following. But if the investigation is driven by a viral video, usually crime skyrockets during and after the investigation.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27324.pdf

The problem is people using anecdotal events to push a narrative, rather than actually analyzing what the situation is and how to fix it.

The racism aspect is the social digest. It's not hard to rationalize BLM to a hammer trying to pound in a nail, but that doesn't mean that there's no systemization in place. And as if all the meanwhile the free market would be able to solve the problem if the Democrats just kept their noses out of things. Very nuanced, I know.

It's not as if any other organization is pushing for more broad-based comprehensive reform to the likes of what you're talking about, particularly in isolated communities most commonly affected.

I feel that doing the "I'm against police brutality; racism isn't the issue" thing can come off as a bit of cherry picking.

[McAvoy]

And this is why the battle is practically up a nintey-degree brick wall.

I agreed with every keystroke in that post.

As far as the battle as far as this thread is concerned though, now that you bring it up, what is the point of this thread in the grand scheme of things?

Wedgius will poke fun at pretty regularly at pretty outlandish things coming out of the black power movement, but what's the ultimate takeaway supposed to be, considering the positions? Like we're just supposed to change our minds about civil liberties when people voice on behalf of a movement irrationally?

Because I guess the loud few speaks for the majority? That's sarcasm.

It's not 'researching' or 'proving' but shopping around for your conclusion.

[Darth Wedgius]

The U.S. states have been called "laboratories of democracy." I'm fine with that. Let some cities or states abolish the police, and the rest of the country can see what happens. If things go all Mogadishu, well, we'll know we probably shouldn't do that again. If it becomes a summer of love that lasts all year, cool, try it someplace else. If it becomes a libertarian free state (no law enforcement means you can use whatever guns you want, and whatever force you want to protect your property, and there's no real need to pay taxes) then fine. They can make the theme from Firefly the official state song.(1)

Let some cities and states have less emphasis on the police and use unarmed professionals to intervene where violence is really unlikely. We can see the results from those, too. And, needless to say, keep other cities the same as experimental controls, but, seeing how resistant many of us are to change, myself not excepted, I don't think that'll be too hard.

The problem with that is that people exiting states that fail may bring their pernicious voting practices with them. People IMHO, often have an unhealthy reluctance to distinguish "evidence says this will likely work" from "ethically, I believe this should work." But no system is perfect. Maybe people will eventually learn.

(1) Firefly may or may not be a libertarian show, but it is frequently seen as such.

[phantom000]

Talking about reparations; I heard an old man say once 'i see a black dude on TV telling me I owe him money because he is a slave and his people were slaves, except he is wearing a suit that is worth more money than I make in a year. He's awfully well dressed for a slave."

[GreyICE]

The key to understanding Darth Wedgius here is that he isn't being honest. It doesn't matter to him how many say "Black Lives Matter" without any desire for destruction or violence.

White supremacists murdered a cop. All lives matter protesters chanted "kill the faggots". Doesn't matter to him.

Thin Blue Line protesters could march through chanting, "Kill Jews! Kill Blacks! Kill Queers!" Doesn't matter to him.

Darth Wedgius probably doesn't believe that what some Black Lives Matter people say means that all BLM's think the same way, he's just trying to earn white supremacist cred.