Police Brutality Thread

[shdowhunt60]

On 5/24/2016 at 2:41 AM, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

And as much as I can see why they think that way, I will still deem them irrational. Collective punishment is inherently unjust. Once we go down that path, we're opening ourselves to all kinds of savagery.

I wish more liberals thought like this.

On 5/24/2016 at 2:41 AM, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

I know there might be some sort of perverse satisfaction from an innocent officer being punished because of the trend of guilty officers getting off, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Wait, was CSS actually advocating for this? I thought he was asking for GUILTY officers to actually be punished. And as much as I'm willing to right off as a lot of the fuckups that cops do as negligence, that doesn't excuse them from the damage that said negligence has caused. I mean, nevermind an officer being dumb enough to put an overweight black man in a stranglehold, I'm also thinking of a case where officers will literally pump 100's of rounds into an old lady's car, because they thought it looked like a suspects vehicle.

 

[Tani Coyote]

7 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Wait, was CSS actually advocating for this? I thought he was asking for GUILTY officers to actually be punished. And as much as I'm willing to right off as a lot of the fuckups that cops do as negligence, that doesn't excuse them from the damage that said negligence has caused. I mean, nevermind an officer being dumb enough to put an overweight black man in a stranglehold, I'm also thinking of a case where officers will literally pump 100's of rounds into an old lady's car, because they thought it looked like a suspects vehicle.

No, he was stating that a lot of people will be angry that an officer got off and that he understands their frustration because police not facing charges is fairly typical. That was my understanding, anyway, and he can correct me if I am off.

I was merely adding that if the officer in question is genuinely innocent, then that's tough cookies for those same people. I don't believe in a law of averages approach where we should punish innocent cops just because guilty cops get off a lot. That would be the most perverse idea of justice I have ever seen.

The system is broken, that's a given. However, we shouldn't say "we should break it even more" in response.

Which is why I find calls for black militancy (which tends to crop up among a fringe minority whenever brutality is in play) extra hilarious. Yes, let's give the rank and file white person more reason to support punitive measures against blacks.

The system sucks, but it is ultimately better to work within it. The alternative is not pretty.

There are only two paths for an oppressed minority. Independence or pursuing equality. Independence is not really a viable option, and so working within the system it is. Blacks in America are much like ethnic groups in India; they are far too spread out to hope for any meaningful local dominance, and so they work within the system.

[shdowhunt60]

Just now, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

The system sucks, but it is ultimately better to work within it. The alternative is not pretty.

We can at least agree with that.

I honestly don't think that the police force is willfully racist or malicious. I think that they're highly irresponsible and negligent, and the system is horribly skewed in its attitudes towards quantity over quality.  And I don't think it's helped that police unions basically do their best to make sure as best as possible that cops don't get fired for doing a bad job. 

[Tani Coyote]

6 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

We can at least agree with that.

I honestly don't think that the police force is willfully racist or malicious. I think that they're highly irresponsible and negligent, and the system is horribly skewed in its attitudes towards quantity over quality.  And I don't think it's helped that police unions basically do their best to make sure as best as possible that cops don't get fired for doing a bad job. 

Never mind a lot of police lobbies continue to lobby for tough on crime approaches, because it ensures they keep getting generous grants of federal money.

I admire the police lobbies that actually speak out against the War on Drugs and the War on Crime. They remember that their purpose is to serve society, not get a taxpayer-funded paycheck.

Most officers are most likely not consciously racist in their behavior. We are for the most part past the days where police would look the other way as white supremacists stormed stations to drag black suspects out for a lynching. Even as early as the 1950s, a lot of whites did not want to live among blacks, but were not advocates of violence against them either.

Unconscious racism is a whole other ballgame. The media has done a fantastic job painting blacks as far more violent than other demographics, and that most likely will inform behavior, as our brains automatically make associations in order to protect us.

Go figure, it seems the police least likely to use lethal force are the ones who regularly work with minorities, especially if it's in a bad neighborhood. They have learned ways to peacefully diffuse situations, never mind they're around non-whites so much it has probably removed the unconscious association of them with violence.

[Nepenthe]

I think to say that black people only have two options- independence or cooperation- and that they must pick one, is highly disingenuous and patronizing, and it glosses over American's history with protest, violence, and countermeasures. It is a given that you must work within the law and with politicians to make legal and somewhat moral progress. That's what Emancipation got us for slavery, the 50s and 60s got us civil rights for a few decades (before the act was lovingly gutted awhile ago, of course) and that's what BLM is doing now. But this political work being done doesn't magically fix the system for all of black people in the now, which is why you simultaneously had slave riots and revolts, the BPP during the Civil Rights Era, and the current frustration and riotous behavior that is happening now in the wake of over-policing and vigilante justice. You cannot expect people who are starving to wait for you to come around to feed them on your schedule, much less laugh at them for thinking of just doing for themselves by going to find food for themselves even if that means stealing.

Physical pushback, middle fingers towards the status quo, and strains of independent work and programs on part of the oppressed are not the most endearing thing, but the facts to consider are that one, the oppressed have never been all that endearing to majority in general anyway (in this case, there's no shortage of examples of whites and even the government killing well-educated, well-dressed, and well-off black men and women), and two, in a country founded in part on an irrational riot within white communities against the British that was celebrated in history enough to become the name of a branch of one of the major political parties after, you would be wrong to say it is always avoidable or has never worked. Emancipation (that thing the whole damn country fought a war over), women's suffrage, proper labor standards and weekends, LGBT rights- none of these were achieved only at the ballot box or with protest signs. People have gotten hurt and things have gotten destroyed over them. It being undesirable doesn't mean it didn't have an effect or was even avoidable within the context of the situations at the time. 

There has been and always will be a healthy dose of both political and somewhat anarchic or alternative work happening simultaneously in through the inevitability of people living and functioning at a far faster rate than what the government and apathetic majority can or wishes to act on. To draw a line in the sand with black people, a group that the system has never really worked for to any significant benefit, and tell us it's only one or the other, and to shake one's head whenever something pops off without awareness of historical context, is patronizing and dismisses people's agency. If you're serious about wanting to decrease violent, uncooperative, and independent behavior on part of the people that are being fucked over, the only thing to do- honestly- is to stop fucking them over.

[Tani Coyote]

 

Quote

in a country founded in part on an irrational riot within white communities against the British that was celebrated in history enough to become the name of a branch of one of the major political parties after, you would be wrong to say it is always avoidable or has never worked.

The difference is whites were a majority and it didn't take too long for the Patriots to gain the favor of the vast majority of the white population.

This isn't Haiti. Racial uprisings will not work, but they will do a fantastic job of giving legitimacy to repression.

Quote

Emancipation (that thing the whole damn country fought a war over), women's suffrage, proper labor standards and weekends, LGBT rights- none of these were achieved only at the ballot box or with protest signs. People have gotten hurt and things have gotten destroyed over them. It being undesirable doesn't mean it didn't have an effect or was even avoidable within the context of the situations at the time. 

The problem with these comparisons is that sexism, rampant capitalism, and homophobia, for as omnipresent as they are, do not hold a candle to the idea of race in the formation of American identity.

We are founded more on the idea of racial others than anything else. We classified the Indians as wasteful and uncivilized to justify seizing their land. We outright demonized the Japanese and Chinese and only allowed Chinese entry as thanks for their help against Japan in World War II. Racism was the backbone of government policy until after the Civil War, and it was woven into federal policy through the New Deal up until now. While gender, race and class are the trinity of American stratification, holy lord, does race dominate that pie.

More down to Earth: women, laborers, gays were generally not depicted as animals (though there was a period where the idea of the gay child predator was as strong as the mythology of the black rapist). On the other hand, blacks are frequently depicted as lazy and unintelligent with a disposition towards violence. We need look no further than how quickly whites root for police officers the moment the words "black" and "white" enter a discussion to see how powerful this image is.

Quote

There has been and always will be a healthy dose of both political and somewhat anarchic or alternative work happening simultaneously in through the inevitability of people living and functioning at a far faster rate than what the government and apathetic majority can or wishes to act on. To draw a line in the sand with black people, a group that the system has never really worked for to any significant benefit, and tell us it's only one or the other, and to shake one's head whenever something pops off without awareness of historical context, is patronizing and dismisses people's agency. If you're serious about wanting to decrease violent, uncooperative, and independent behavior on part of the people that are being fucked over, the only thing to do- honestly- is to stop fucking them over.

All the race riots that have happened in the past decades haven't done much other than give more fuel to the idea that black neighborhoods need more policing. Never mind there's an obvious double standard given the stupid shit white people riot about that never gets reported.

If the proposal is even more violence, I don't think that will change things either. That takes us closer to a race war, and in war, you have a very clean conscious about killing the other party. More militancy would be disastrous for the community.

That's to say nothing about the fact that a lot of gangs have their roots in militant organizations meant to protect their minority group (which still remains partly true, given the Crip-Blood truces), only to turn on the very community they were supposed to protect. And hey, more gangs means more reason to have cops descend on a community like locusts. Extra points to have an itchy trigger finger because of how dangerous the environment is.

There really isn't an easy way out. I'm not trying to be patronizing, so much as pointing out non-whites - especially blacks, who get singled out by far - are in a unique situation that greatly limits their options versus other minority groups. Wives live with their husbands and children, so it wasn't too hard to win over men (especially if it was a couple based on love rather than the traditional idea of the woman as a baby factory) given time. Gay people are just like anyone else barring their choice of partner. Pretty much everyone is a laborer, so how many won't believe they need decent treatment?

Blacks? Not many people are black, and those who aren't have a clear preference not to live among them if not outright disdain for them. They stick out like a sore thumb, and so are a perfect target. They have a stereotype that is hard to break and will only be reinforced by violent direct action.

Let us recap: when women, gays, workers, etc. rise up, it's seen as being because of a legitimate grievance. When a black person commits violence, they are depicted as fundamentally irrational at best and malicious at worst. Non-blacks' violence is seen as circumstantial, while blacks' is seen as natural. There is a serious double standard that precludes the use of violence the same way these other groups used it to draw attention to their issues.

[Nepenthe]

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

The difference is whites were a majority and it didn't take too long for the Patriots to gain the favor of the vast majority of the white population.

This isn't Haiti. Racial uprisings will not work, but they will do a fantastic job of giving legitimacy to repression.

Ignoring the racial weirdness that is whites are apparently free to riot against whites with moral impunity, as well as the fact that "white" as an identifier did not hold the same context and cultural meaning in the 1700s that it does now, you are ignoring the point of the comparison which is that violent protesting has a history of getting things done either for short term goals or for marking the beginning of specific movements. As for racial uprisings not working, they are essentially what allowed more slaves than what the system would've allowed to be freed from their captors while the public was either complicit to the terror or working too slowly in the name of justice in reforming itself. So again, saying they won't work when they have before in America is preposterous.

Quote

More down to Earth: women, laborers, gays were generally not depicted as animals (though there was a period where the idea of the gay child predator was as strong as the mythology of the black rapist). On the other hand, blacks are frequently depicted as lazy and unintelligent with a disposition towards violence. We need look no further than how quickly whites root for police officers the moment the words "black" and "white" enter a discussion to see how powerful this image is.

This doesn't really refute anything. White people have always rooted against black people regardless of how they were working in the system (and the same is honestly true of women, laborers, and LGBT people, hence why none of these groups have found sociopolitical equivalence with their majority counterparts yet). Let us remember the civil rights assassinations, church bombings, Greenwood, lynchings, and all sorts of systemic abuses first before we start talking about respectability politics. There is no ground to yield to white people through peace because the ground never actually existed in black hands to be yielded in the first place. A nigger in a suit is no different from a nigger in baggy clothes.

Quote

If the proposal is even more violence, I don't think that will change things either. That takes us closer to a race war, and in war, you have a very clean conscious about killing the other party. More militancy would be disastrous for the community.

The proposal is not that we need more violence. My argument is: violence on part of any oppressed minority is a random yet absolutely inevitable consequence of majority groups' moral failure in equalizing the playing field for their fellow man, thus instead of saying "stop being violent!" and splitting hairs about who is and isn't allowed to be violent within the system, you need to concern yourself with the root of violence.

Quote

Let us recap: when women, gays, workers, etc. rise up, it's seen as being because of a legitimate grievance. When a black person commits violence, they are depicted as fundamentally irrational at best and malicious at worst. Non-blacks' violence is seen as circumstantial, while blacks' is seen as natural. There is a serious double standard that precludes the use of violence the same way these other groups used it to draw attention to their issues.

Women, gays, and workers rising up is not always seen as legitimate grievances. You only need to look at rape and harassment, business and medical discrimination, and the minimum wage battles going on right now respectively to see that. But regardless, assuming what you're saying is actually 100% true, all you're doing with your argument is simply being complicit with the double-standard that is racism. The moment you dictate what black people aren't allowed to do in relation to white people, you are nonetheless advocating for a racist outcome.

[Dizcrybe]

Honestly at this point I'm inclined to say do whatever you have to to get people to listen to you. If some decide that peacefulness isn't going to work and their only option is to resort to violence, oh well.

[Tani Coyote]

19 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

As for racial uprisings not working, they are essentially what allowed more slaves than what the system would've allowed to be freed from their captors while the public was either complicit to the terror or working too slowly in the name of justice in reforming itself. So again, saying they won't work when they have before in America is preposterous.

Given it took a Civil War to abolish slavery, I'm not buying this.

It might have worked in the North, but the North's racism is a different beast. Slavery was not integral to the Northern economy, so when the time came to end it, most Northerners were okay with it. Much like Southern whites, the common person had no stake in the slavery system.

The South, however, had built itself on the whole idea of blacks as an inferior class of labor. It's a case study of elites creating artificial barriers to keep the common man from going French Revolution on their asses. Every uprising only served to legitimize the elites' propaganda that they were a savage people in need of civilizing by white overlords. The response to Haiti's Revolution was not "maybe we should treat blacks as human beings" but rather "we should control blacks even more than we do now."

Quote

The proposal is not that we need more violence. My argument is: violence on part of any oppressed minority is a random yet absolutely inevitable consequence of majority groups' moral failure in equalizing the playing field for their fellow man, thus instead of saying "stop being violent!" and splitting hairs about who is and isn't allowed to be violent within the system, you need to concern yourself with the root of violence.

Women, gays, and workers rising up is not always seen as legitimate grievances. You only need to look at rape and harassment, business and medical discrimination, and the minimum wage battles going on right now respectively to see that. But regardless, assuming what you're saying is actually 100% true, all you're doing with your argument is simply being complicit with the double-standard that is racism. The moment you dictate what black people aren't allowed to do in relation to white people, you are nonetheless advocating for a racist outcome.

I'm not saying they aren't morally allowed to do so, merely that it would be self-defeating to engage in violence by merit of the public reaction.

It doesn't help these riots don't seem to have any coherent goal. If police brutality is the issue, why aren't the attacks on police stations and officers? I can't help but notice very often they are not. Quite a few rioters go for shops and the like... which is where the white idea that riots are just an excuse for theft and violence comes from. If a show of force is what is desired, it would seem much more fruitful to form an organized miltia-esque group... but of course, as we know, only white people are allowed to form militias in this country without being deemed a threat on the spot. The moment a few whites occupy federal land, it's "their constitutional right," but if non-whites did the same thing, it's "holy shit race war!" Never mind that, as mentioned, many gangs have their origins in these exact same militia-style groups, only to turn on the communities they're supposed to protect.

I'm a pragmatist. Most white people have a shitty, unfair opinion on this subject. That is probably not going to change. If people were easily changed, we wouldn't have thousands of years of nonstop warfare over the stupidest disputes. It's not fair that blacks have a different standard applied to their violence, but life's not fair. Guys like Machiavelli emphasize the importance of knowing circumstances for a reason; at the end of the day, there are things just simply beyond your control.

Those protestors of brutality who stop the rioters are thinking long-term. Respectability politics doesn't really produce any immediate results... but neither does rioting. Blacks are kind of stuck in a hole where not much works for wooing the general public. LBJ's sympathy largely stemmed from his powerful religious beliefs as well as his personal experience with people in poverty; he formed a sort of connection with non-whites from a young age that many whites do not (especially in today's world, where even poor whites don't have much trouble avoiding living among poor non-whites).

I can reassure you, though. Violence is not going to form any sort of connection, doubly so when most white people don't think there's any reason for the violence. An unfair double standard, but such is life. As is the fact that more often than not, an oppressed minority group member will not see justice in their lifetime. There's a reason I consider myself fortunate to be a gay person born at a time of legalized gay marriage as opposed to the thousands of years of ritual executions for sodomy.

15 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

Honestly at this point I'm inclined to say do whatever you have to to get people to listen to you. If some decide that peacefulness isn't going to work and their only option is to resort to violence, oh well.

During the heights of tensions with Indians, authorities paid handsomely for their scalps. Any Indian scalp, actually; many allied tribe members were murdered because the government didn't exercise oversight.

Violence is not going to make people say "we should treat non-whites fairly" so much as "we need to quarantine/kill them all."

It's no surprise that riots are often followed by surges in "law and order" thinking. The idea that non-whites have legitimate grievances is quite simply not entertained. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if pointing out racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system only makes whites more interested in supporting the system.

It goes beyond blacks. In the flare up of anger after 9/11, more than a handful of Americans were quite happy with the idea of "kill them all" in regards to Muslims. It was an irrational moment of rage fueled by fear, but it shows how quick the public abandon humanitarian principles if they feel threatened.

Now, directed violence might be more effective (consider the works of anarchists), but there's the underlying issue that whites don't see any real issue with the status quo.

Whites tend to be ignorant, stubborn types on the issues of race. But they might be willing to listen if you can have a conversation with them. They will absolutely not listen if they assume you are a threat, because the general human reaction to threats isn't to try and talk it over.

[Dizcrybe]

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Whites tend to be ignorant, stubborn types on the issues of race. But they might be willing to listen if you can have a conversation with them.

And what do you do with the ones that aren't? The ones that would rather resort to name-calling and defensiveness and what are essentially cries of "no u" because they've so convinced themselves that racism is some myth that liberals/SJWs made up to demonize white people or they're so afraid of looking racist (being racist is an afterthought) that they deny any possible evidence of institutionalized prejudices they or someone like them might have (that ultimately aren't their fault) because there's no way they could possibly be racist? And then what you do when you realize that many of these people are in positions of power - legislators, mayors, governors - and you aren't? You might be able to get one Joe Schmoe on the street to see things your way, sure, but if he has no more power to get some serious change started in this country than you do, what's it really accomplish in the grand scheme of things?

It just seems like a catch-22 situation; you try to be civil and Middle America brushes you off, then when that doesn't work, you decide it's time to get rough and they decide you're a threat that must be stopped. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

With that train of thought in mind, it's no wonder some decide to do things the hard way; if they're going down either way, at least they can say they went down swinging.

[Tani Coyote]

7 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

And what do you do with the ones that aren't? The ones that would rather resort to name-calling and defensiveness and what are essentially cries of "no u" because they've so convinced themselves that racism is some myth that liberals/SJWs made up to demonize white people or they're so afraid of looking racist (being racist is an afterthought) that they deny any possible evidence of institutionalized prejudices they or someone like them might have (that ultimately aren't their fault) because there's no way they could possibly be racist? And then what you do when you realize that many of these people are in positions of power - legislators, mayors, governors - and you aren't? You might be able to get one Joe Schmoe on the street to see things your way, sure, but if he has no more power to get some serious change started in this country than you do, what's it really accomplish in the grand scheme of things?

It just seems like a catch-22 situation; you try to be civil and Middle America brushes you off, then when that doesn't work, you decide it's time to get rough and they decide you're a threat that must be stopped. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

With that train of thought in mind, it's no wonder some decide to do things the hard way; if they're going down either way, at least they can say they went down swinging.

In spite of the stumbling blocks, diplomacy is ultimately more effective.

Yes, Dr. King was murdered. But he probably accomplished a hell of a lot more than rioting on the issue of race. It makes the riots in reaction to his death even more regretful, because that just gave guys like Nixon the ammo they needed to come down hard on the "urban jungle."

The basic options seem to be peaceful moves with a few leaders being assassinated versus mass violent action that just results in everyone being riddled with bullets.

Both options are very slow at bringing change, but I think the peaceful option is still going to bring a lot more. Yes, the politicians in power tend to be behind the times in thinking, but they will eventually all expire, giving a chance for new blood without the ideological baggage to take the reins. It would be a hard case to say the African American situation of now is comparable to 100 years ago.

And that's why thinking long-term comes into hand. You might not win any victories for you, but you can win it for your children or grandchildren. The "go down swinging" mentality only is valid if one does not consider future generations.

Here's the real clincher, though: any violence, no matter how small as a part of the whole, will be disproportionately represented. So even if 95% of the black population demonstrates peacefully, that 5% that doesn't is going to be what gets the media attention, thus shaping the public reaction. There is sadly a tendency to view minorities as a hive mind, while majorities enjoy individuality.

Essentially, change takes time. Especially on this subject, because racism is as intimately woven in America's psyche as gun enthusiasm.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

On 5/26/2016 at 4:19 AM, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

No, he was stating that a lot of people will be angry that an officer got off and that he understands their frustration because police not facing charges is fairly typical. That was my understanding, anyway, and he can correct me if I am off.

No, you were right. But I do think Shadowhunt has a point that I can't help but agree with to an extent, but at the same time that can potentially lead to a slippery slope of finger pointing over negligence that I think would be better off not implemented in the long run. We have enough problems with the risk of punishing the innocent as it is.

 

7 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

And what do you do with the ones that aren't? The ones that would rather resort to name-calling and defensiveness and what are essentially cries of "no u" because they've so convinced themselves that racism is some myth that liberals/SJWs made up to demonize white people or they're so afraid of looking racist (being racist is an afterthought) that they deny any possible evidence of institutionalized prejudices they or someone like them might have (that ultimately aren't their fault) because there's no way they could possibly be racist? And then what you do when you realize that many of these people are in positions of power - legislators, mayors, governors - and you aren't? You might be able to get one Joe Schmoe on the street to see things your way, sure, but if he has no more power to get some serious change started in this country than you do, what's it really accomplish in the grand scheme of things?

It just seems like a catch-22 situation; you try to be civil and Middle America brushes you off, then when that doesn't work, you decide it's time to get rough and they decide you're a threat that must be stopped. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

With that train of thought in mind, it's no wonder some decide to do things the hard way; if they're going down either way, at least they can say they went down swinging.

I think the key thing to realize is that you're not going to convince someone who so dead set in denying the problem and will do everything in their power to ignore it. We saw this when Dylan Roof killed several black people in a church, with no ambiguity over who he meant as far as people "taking over [their] country and raping [their] women", and yet some fucking how that was derailed into being an attack against religion instead of against african americans. If something like that can happen, I think that says it very clearly how far people will stick their head in the sand over the problem.

So your only way of dealing with such bullheaded people is to undermine them to where their denial and brushing you off holds no weight - practically the same undermining that whites did during times when racism was open and blatant. The same tactics used against you can also be used against your enemies, so work your way somewhere into the system and find a key element to get the change you want rather than taking it head on and giving it a reason to justify its cause against you. Things like diplomacy and whatnot that Ogilvie was talking about. Find allies in powerful positions, have them help you in your cause. It ain't gonna be easy, nor will it be quick, but the alternative isn't exactly going to net you much progress unless you have the resources to back it.

Now, I'm a strong advocate of using outright violence when necessary ("when necessary" being the key words here) to get things done, but during these times it only serves to prove and reinforce your opponent's points, which isn't something you want to do. I mean, is it any wonder than when MLK was assassinated in order to keep blacks down during the Civil Rights Movement, it actually backfired and progressed it?

[Tani Coyote]

On 5/27/2016 at 3:17 PM, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Now, I'm a strong advocate of using outright violence when necessary ("when necessary" being the key words here) to get things done, but during these times it only serves to prove and reinforce your opponent's points, which isn't something you want to do. I mean, is it any wonder than when MLK was assassinated in order to keep blacks down during the Civil Rights Movement, it actually backfired and progressed it?

It's ultimately a choice of options.

Peaceful demonstrations will possibly result in high profile leaders being killed (though it seems assassinations of rights leaders aren't anywhere near as common as they used to be, likely due to how racism has mutated into a more under the table sort of thing). Violent demonstrations will result in many more being killed, and will also give figurative and literal ammunition to the state to suppress them further.

Until a year ago, I was convinced that I would never be able to marry any man I loved and raise a family with him. I would have to be extra secretive about myself for his and my sake. I am fortunate to have been born in a time when enough people are supportive of my sexuality that I, in fact, don't need to be as secretive or full of despair as I was at one point.

The main idea there being that progress is something that generally takes time; I could just as easily have been born 100 years ago and not have had the same freedom I do now with my sexual identity. In much the same way, regardless of what path they take, a black American is very unlikely to see full equality in his or her lifetime today. It's awful and unfair, but it is what it is. We have to reconcile our desires with society in the same way we reconcile them with death, unless one's goal is to form another society or become a hermit, both of which I imagine won't be happening on this issue.

There is the unfair double standard on expectations of black behavior, but I don't know if we can really hope to shake it at the present time. It's unfortunate, but it has to be accommodated, lest racial prejudices be reinforced. I can understand the call for whites to make a move for a change, but I don't know if they will, as they are convinced there's no need to, and I don't think you will convince them otherwise.

This is a land where more than a few people reject evolution because of a text that is thousands of years old. It should be no surprise that there is severe confirmation bias on the subject of racial equality and privilege, and the implications such things have on our identities and self-worth.

There is ultimately a bizarre paradox at work. In a land where the races are unequal, they are still expected to act as if they are not. It's why I'm so adamant about trying to frame racial issues in a colorblind manner to bring about more rapid change. The average white person, quite frankly, will either deny or be accepting of police brutality against blacks. Black Lives Matter made a brilliant choice in expanding their coverage to white victims, as it has made brutality out as a non-racial issue (even though it is), which will probably make the general public more favorable to changes that will ultimately trickle down and benefit blacks more.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

19 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

There is ultimately a bizarre paradox at work. In a land where the races are unequal, they are still expected to act as if they are not. It's why I'm so adamant about trying to frame racial issues in a colorblind manner to bring about more rapid change. The average white person, quite frankly, will either deny or be accepting of police brutality against blacks. Black Lives Matter made a brilliant choice in expanding their coverage to white victims, as it has made brutality out as a non-racial issue (even though it is), which will probably make the general public more favorable to changes that will ultimately trickle down and benefit blacks more.

Well let's be fair about framing racial issues in a colorblind manner - it does run the risk of missing the point depending on how you frame it, or even backfire in itself. It says a lot that many of these issues are racialized and stacked against minorities in the first place, so making a racial issue seem non-racial might end up validating the point that "there is no racism" to many. 

But at the same time, I understand the intention can be used to invoke empathy from the majority to the minority and show them how it can negatively affect them if they don't help do something about it. At the end of the day, the point is clear - if the majority sees no benefit or anything in it for them, they're probably going to just let things be as they are. Beating them over the head with the facts can only go so far before it's outright ignored.

[Tani Coyote]

11 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Well let's be fair about framing racial issues in a colorblind manner - it does run the risk of missing the point depending on how you frame it, or even backfire in itself. It says a lot that many of these issues are racialized and stacked against minorities in the first place, so making a racial issue seem non-racial might end up validating the point that "there is no racism" to many. 

But at the same time, I understand the intention can be used to invoke empathy from the majority to the minority and show them how it can negatively affect them if they don't help do something about it. At the end of the day, the point is clear - if the majority sees no benefit or anything in it for them, they're probably going to just let things be as they are. Beating them over the head with the facts can only go so far before it's outright ignored.

My personal favorite is the tendency of conservative and moderate whites to chalk all data indicating racism up to "liberal bias," which grinds any progress on the issue to a halt.

It never occurred that perhaps reality has a liberal bias, and the idea that all political viewpoints are equally valid in moral and intellectual terms is fundamentally wrong.

We work with subjective and objective racists not because their views are equally valid, but because they have the numbers to be worthy of consideration. The alternative is gridlock. Such is the nature of a democratic society.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-goodson-verdict-20160623-story.html

Caesar Goodson, the officer with the most severe charges in the Freddie Gray case, opted to have a bench trial (like Nero, who was acquitted of charges). He has been acquitted of all charges, causing concern as to what will happen with the remaining cases, which have less severe accusations.

You know, I can't help but ponder if these bench trials are a bit of a problem. They leave the decision solely to the judge, rather than a jury.

The idea of being tried by a jury is that a subset of society has to believe you are guilty for you to be charged; this protects the innocent. In the case of an individual citizen waiving their jury rights, it would theoretically demonstrate confidence in their innocence. But in cases like this, I can't help but feel like it helps officers be insulated from public opinion. They don't have to convince a group of people with all their various biases, good or bad. They just have to convince judges, who are well-known for their bias towards the status quo and subconscious racism.

I can't help but ponder if we should illegalize bench trials for officers.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

But such officers have also gotten off scot-free even with a jury.

Neither one seems to be doing a lot of favors, with the jury option only doing slightly better yet not enough to matter. 

[Tani Coyote]

2 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

But such officers have also gotten off scot-free even with a jury.

Neither one seems to be doing a lot of favors, with the jury option only doing slightly better yet not enough to matter. 

If it raises the conviction rate even slightly, that would be desirable.

Though this is a very strange case, since Goodson is black himself. It'd be interesting to see how a jury trial would play out, given he'd have the pro-cop bias and the anti-black bias at the same time.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

If it raises the conviction rate even slightly, that would be desirable.

Though this is a very strange case, since Goodson is black himself. It'd be interesting to see how a jury trial would play out, given he'd have the pro-cop bias and the anti-black bias at the same time.

They'll probably use that as an excuse to say "See? It's not racism."

[Tani Coyote]

2 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

They'll probably use that as an excuse to say "See? It's not racism."

Which is extra delicious, because I've noticed a lot of upwardly mobile black people in particular have disdain for their own race. Politics of respectability and all that.

Then again, even regular black people seem to have internalized the sentiment. Every race wants to live in a majority-white neighborhood, for example.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

22 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Which is extra delicious, because I've noticed a lot of upwardly mobile black people in particular have disdain for their own race. Politics of respectability and all that.

Then again, even regular black people seem to have internalized the sentiment. Every race wants to live in a majority-white neighborhood, for example.

Speaking as an African-American, that's not actually the case why black people have a so-called disdain for their own race. It's primarily because given the shit African-American's have been put through all throughout history, we want to do better and rise up to better our image. But many of us drown ourselves in that very bullshit that gives us that stereotypical image and act accordingly...and then those very people have the gall to complain about it when called out on it by other African-Americans.

Or to give a clear picture, an African-American striving to be an intellectual, do and live a better life is said to be "acting white" by other African-Americans who would rather not "act white" and embrace the impoverished lifestyle. Because education and high standards is totally a white thing and a betrayal of being "black." 

EDIT: And then shit like what we're discussing in this topic happens for them to see how it's gotten them nowhere good.

[Tani Coyote]

18 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Speaking as an African-American, that's not actually the case why black people have a so-called disdain for their own race. It's primarily because given the shit African-American's have been put through all throughout history, we want to do better and rise up to better our image. But many of us drown ourselves in that very bullshit that gives us that stereotypical image and act accordingly...and then those very people have the gall to complain about it when called out on it by other African-Americans.

Or to give a clear picture, an African-American striving to be an intellectual, do and live a better life is said to be "acting white" by other African-Americans who would rather not "act white" and embrace the impoverished lifestyle. Because education and high standards is totally a white thing and a betrayal of being "black." 

Well, that would be the politics of respectability I was discussing. It's the same reason black communities have historically been conservative on a lot of issues like homosexuality. "What whites do, we must do as well," basically.

Though coming back to the relationship between brutality and race, that would be where the idea a black cop brutalizing a black person being non-racist falls apart. It's very possible a black officer like Goodson is educated and the like, and stereotypes rank and file black Americans as "thugs" the same way a white officer would. Despite everyone's interest in being colorblind, it becomes apparent very easily that most people hold racist viewpoints, even if they are not crossburning members of the KKK. The issue could possibly be even worse among black officers, as they can argue that they "know their people" or the like, making them even more likely to be excessive. Especially when people may not be as quick to consider their viewpoints as racist by merit of their skin tone, in spite of the wealth of material on the concept of internalization.

On the point of colorblindness and how hollow it is, consider such gems as, "I'm not racist, but I can't help but notice black people like rioting more" and the like. These sorts of microaggressions are normalized, and so are going to influence the minds of officers. Even a black person who defies every stereotype is not safe, because his very blackness has been subconsciously associated with negativity.

http://mashable.com/2015/08/08/black-men-dressing-up-police/

All the same, though, it sounds like more and more black men are opting to dress more formally in public so as to reduce the chance of profiling.

[Dizcrybe]

Which it's awful that they even have to do that, but you know, good ol' USA.

[Tani Coyote]

3 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

Which it's awful that they even have to do that, but you know, good ol' USA.

On the other side of the coin: I've been told a safety tip is to wear baggy clothing in urban centers, because it makes potential muggers and the like think you have a gun, so they avoid you.

It really does highlight the race divide. A white person should wear baggy clothing for their safety, whereas a black person should wear formal clothing for theirs, albeit from different parties.

Then again, I've heard that criminals profile as much as police. They prefer white and Asian targets over other groups because of the statistical likelihood of a score.

[Tani Coyote]

Go figure, my Law class actually touched upon data regarding bench trials today. Are you ready for how this relates to the Gray case?

Bench trials tend to be more lenient towards the accused regardless of who they are (the judge does not need to please a jury being one reason). In fact, a bench trial often produces a sentence akin to what you would get with a plea bargain.

So I can see why so many of these officers are opting for a bench trial. They tend to be lenient already, but the likelihood of judges (most of them being white) to be biased towards law enforcement gives officers an edge regardless of if they are innocent or guilty.