[Discussion] Police, White Nationalists, and the Rise of Fascism

Paleocon wrote:
Hobear wrote:

You all engaged with me and changed my mind. My friend helped me see and not through intervention but by hearing people I respect have different ideals. I changed. I was never a Nazi but I fell for poor by choice narrative and that the GOP were saviors for one election.

So by your note we shouldn't even try? Not trying to pick a fight but I am not rationalizing any human but there is a different between a conservative who is going down the news rabbit hole and a Q anon.

I feel ya. That said, I think, at least in my case, I am exhausted af from having to do all the emotional labor of helping even well meaning people understand that the background noise of systemic racism they help create exists and is the core of how injustice is propagated. It is like being the only asthmatic in an office full of chain smokers who thinks you're a troublemaker for insisting on healthy changes. And every time they insist on "democratic solutions" or "middle ground", you end up getting f*cked in the end anyway.

At a certain point, it is all just too much.

I don't disagree with you and I wasn't searching for middle of the ground solutions. I hope my other post helped clear up any miscommunication.

There's engaging with them and then there's appeasing them. Engaging would be being willing to tell them they're wrong about and explain why. Appeasing would be extending them the benefit of the doubt when they've made themselves quite clear they won't do the same for you. Appeasing is also trying to "both sides" things instead of realizing that there is a massive difference in reasoning why one side won't listen to the other.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/4k33E9u.png)

Stengah wrote:

There's engaging with them and then there's appeasing them. Engaging would be being willing to tell them they're wrong about and explain why. Appeasing would be extending them the benefit of the doubt when they've made themselves quite clear they won't do the same for you. Appeasing is also trying to "both sides" things instead of realizing that there is a massive difference in reasoning why one side won't listen to the other.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/4k33E9u.png)

I was not advocating for meeting in the middle.

‘f*ck ’Em Up’: Bodycam Video Shows Minneapolis Police ‘Hunting’ Protesters

Body-worn camera footage released this week shows Minneapolis Police bragging about “hunting” protesters with rubber bullets during demonstrations in the days following the police murder of George Floyd.

In the videos, which were obtained by a Minnesota lawyer and provided to the Minnesota Reformer, officers appear to treat the streets of Minneapolis like an active war zone, and protesters like enemy combatants.

“These guys are pussies,” one officer says to Sgt. Andrew Bittell, whose body camera captured one of the videos released. “You get within 30 feet of them and they run.”

“Yeah, exactly,” Bittell responds. “You got to hit them with the 40s,” referring to rubber bullets fired from 40mm grenade-launchers.

Hobear wrote:
Stengah wrote:

There's engaging with them and then there's appeasing them. Engaging would be being willing to tell them they're wrong about and explain why. Appeasing would be extending them the benefit of the doubt when they've made themselves quite clear they won't do the same for you. Appeasing is also trying to "both sides" things instead of realizing that there is a massive difference in reasoning why one side won't listen to the other.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/4k33E9u.png)

I was not advocating for meeting in the middle.

I know, that part was more directed at how fang's & rawk's version of engaging was more like appeasement. If you approach them as if you're looking to find a compromise, you'll be the one making all the concessions.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

‘f*ck ’Em Up’: Bodycam Video Shows Minneapolis Police ‘Hunting’ Protesters

“These guys are pussies,” one officer says to Sgt. Andrew Bittell, whose body camera captured one of the videos released. “You get within 30 feet of them and they run.”

This makes me furious. “Hey, look at how scared those people are when we get close because they know we can do whatever we like and if they show any signs of active resistance or even if we think we see active signs of resistance we might actually kill them. What chickens. Ha ha.”

Stengah wrote:

I know, that part was more directed at how fang's & rawk's version of engaging was more like appeasement. If you approach them as if you're looking to find a compromise, you'll be the one making all the concessions.

Please don’t accuse me of appeasing Chuck. I find that insulting and infuriating, and it’s not accurate. Please stop doing it.

Nor am I compromising with Chuck or making concessions for Chuck. I tell him exactly how I feel, and he’s a decent enough person to consider what I’m saying, despite the fact that he disagrees with me.

Something to give a read in re: to well meaning people who have merely been victimized by right wing indoctrination.

The Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer

Hobear wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Hobear wrote:

You all engaged with me and changed my mind. My friend helped me see and not through intervention but by hearing people I respect have different ideals. I changed. I was never a Nazi but I fell for poor by choice narrative and that the GOP were saviors for one election.

So by your note we shouldn't even try? Not trying to pick a fight but I am not rationalizing any human but there is a different between a conservative who is going down the news rabbit hole and a Q anon.

I feel ya. That said, I think, at least in my case, I am exhausted af from having to do all the emotional labor of helping even well meaning people understand that the background noise of systemic racism they help create exists and is the core of how injustice is propagated. It is like being the only asthmatic in an office full of chain smokers who thinks you're a troublemaker for insisting on healthy changes. And every time they insist on "democratic solutions" or "middle ground", you end up getting f*cked in the end anyway.

At a certain point, it is all just too much.

I don't disagree with you and I wasn't searching for middle of the ground solutions. I hope my other post helped clear up any miscommunication.

Again, I get you and I appreciate when folks sincerely wish to be educated, but it is simply exhausting dealing with the same sh*t all the time. Folks who either can't or refuse to recognize their privilege at the expense of others because they aren't ready to accept that however sh*tty their lives are, they benefit from the systemic oppression of others is bad enough, but then you have to add to that the deliberate "concern trolling" of assholes like ones we have all witnessed even here on what has otherwise been a pretty open and honest space for real talk. And it is always the same tired recycling of bullsh*t, whack-a-mole arguments that in the end simply boil down to "racism is just your opinion, man".

Honestly, if you want to know why despite the hard work and enterprise people of color don't already rule the nation, so much of it can be explained by just the burden of carrying the weight of systemic racism for the sake of making white people feel comfortable.

Paleocon wrote:

whack-a-mole arguments…

Ironically, in part of my conversation with Chuck, he asked me for an example of misinformation that’s been proliferated by Facebook. I gave him one, and made a convincing argument that he couldn’t refute. Then he said, “Ok. Give me another.” My response was that if I did, we would just be playing a game of whack-a-mole and I wasn’t interested in playing that.

RawkGWJ wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

whack-a-mole arguments…

Ironically, in part of my conversation with Chuck, he asked me for an example of misinformation that’s been proliferated by Facebook. I gave him one, and made a convincing argument that he couldn’t refute. Then he said, “Ok. Give me another.” My response was that if I did, we would just be playing a game of whack-a-mole and I wasn’t interested in playing that.

I have just about gotten to the point that unless someone is willing to read through and discuss a book from Franz Fanon, Ngugi Wa Thiong'o, or bell hooks first, I am simply not willing to engage them on a discussion about race.

*updates book wish list*

fangblackbone wrote:

side note: People are not dogs. But people lash out when they are hurt, forgotten, or unheard. Lashing out back to them or turning it into a competition does not deescalate.

I hope we can all agree that white people in general and Trumpists in particular are the LEAST "hurt, forgotten, or unheard" portion of the population. My mother used almost these same words in trying to excuse the actions of the 1/6 insurrectionists. There's a huge difference between certain people feeling unheard and actually being unheard.

Natus wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

side note: People are not dogs. But people lash out when they are hurt, forgotten, or unheard. Lashing out back to them or turning it into a competition does not deescalate.

I hope we can all agree that white people in general and Trumpists in particular are the LEAST "hurt, forgotten, or unheard" portion of the population. My mother used almost these same words in trying to excuse the actions of the 1/6 insurrectionists. There's a huge difference between certain people feeling unheard and actually being unheard.

I really get this whole "hurt people hurt people" thing, but at a certain point, we have to admit to ourselves that overaccommodating someone's entitlement is a source of moral hazard. And doing so for inconvenienced white folks at the expense of people of color has been the overriding narrative of American history. We tolerated or even encouraged the KKK because we wanted to welcome white Southerners back into the Union after the Civil War. Now we seem to be bending over backward to understand the source of white rage at the expense, again, of people of color. And all it does is cement the idea that white inconvenience holds so much more gravity than actual black oppression.

Mixolyde wrote:

*updates book wish list*

In the space of two weeks I went from never having heard of Frantz Fanon to being convinced he was one of the 20th century's greatest thinkers on decolonization.

Natus wrote:

I hope we can all agree that white people in general and Trumpists in particular are the LEAST "hurt, forgotten, or unheard" portion of the population. My mother used almost these same words in trying to excuse the actions of the 1/6 insurrectionists. There's a huge difference between certain people feeling unheard and actually being unheard.

I think of this as the Hillbilly Elegy fallacy.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Natus wrote:

I hope we can all agree that white people in general and Trumpists in particular are the LEAST "hurt, forgotten, or unheard" portion of the population. My mother used almost these same words in trying to excuse the actions of the 1/6 insurrectionists. There's a huge difference between certain people feeling unheard and actually being unheard.

I think of this as the Hillbilly Elegy fallacy.

Exactly. And we see how that turned out writ large and especially with the author himself.

Paleocon wrote:
Natus wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

side note: People are not dogs. But people lash out when they are hurt, forgotten, or unheard. Lashing out back to them or turning it into a competition does not deescalate.

I hope we can all agree that white people in general and Trumpists in particular are the LEAST "hurt, forgotten, or unheard" portion of the population. My mother used almost these same words in trying to excuse the actions of the 1/6 insurrectionists. There's a huge difference between certain people feeling unheard and actually being unheard.

I really get this whole "hurt people hurt people" thing, but at a certain point, we have to admit to ourselves that overaccommodating someone's entitlement is a source of moral hazard. And doing so for inconvenienced white folks at the expense of people of color has been the overriding narrative of American history. We tolerated or even encouraged the KKK because we wanted to welcome white Southerners back into the Union after the Civil War. Now we seem to be bending over backward to understand the source of white rage at the expense, again, of people of color. And all it does is cement the idea that white inconvenience holds so much more gravity than actual black oppression.

Great post, in particular the bolded line.

1. I never said anything about appeasement. I never said anything about accommodation or overaccommodation or tolerating it.
2. I said don't bark at those barking at a barking dog. And don't bark at a barking dog.
3. If you implied that by that I meant "do nothing", I meant no such thing.
4. I further distinguished JLS's barking at barking dog's by noting that he followed it up with action/involvement.

By barking at barking dogs and those that enable them, you are empowering the enablers and the dogs to bite.

So what do you do?
Support the local organizations effected - Planned Parenthood, the voting rights organizations
Work against the messaging - promote the benefits of Build Back Better to counter the scare tactics of the cost. Make sure others understand the costs are mostly paid for and its not a one time immediate payment.
Make sure to expose the companies and parties involved. Encourage boycotting companies that "both sides" this or fund misinformation or draconian laws.
And I am sure you can list more but the point is that barking is the least effective way to stand up to this.

RawkGWJ wrote:
Stengah wrote:

I know, that part was more directed at how fang's & rawk's version of engaging was more like appeasement. If you approach them as if you're looking to find a compromise, you'll be the one making all the concessions.

Please don’t accuse me of appeasing Chuck. I find that insulting and infuriating, and it’s not accurate. Please stop doing it.

Nor am I compromising with Chuck or making concessions for Chuck. I tell him exactly how I feel, and he’s a decent enough person to consider what I’m saying, despite the fact that he disagrees with me.

It's appeasing because you insist he's still a good person who just disagrees with you. I'm not saying he's a bad person for disagreeing with you, but that he's a bad person because of what he's disagreeing with you over.

My grandmother was a nice person...to me. She also called people from the middle east sand n*ggers and bought into every racist stereotype about black people. It sucks to say it because i remember the loving grandmother side the most, but she was not a good person. Insisting otherwise would be appeasement, agreeing to consider someone a good person despite them believing horrible things.

RawkGWJ wrote:

My buddy Chuck does not identify as a Nazi. He is 100% anti Nazi. To imply that Chuck is a Nazi is a gross misrepresentation. It’s akin to an ad-homonym attack and a straw man argument.

You also can't be a Trumpist and be "100% anti-Nazi." That's not how it works. The actual anti-Nazis--conservatives, centrists, and progressives--have bolted from the GOP because it's infested with Nazis and white supremacists (and always has been, but not quite so disastrously). The swastika flags at Charlottesville and the Confederate flags at both Charlottesville and Washington, D.C. on 1/6 made it very clear who the MAGA crowd is. And that means many of us have to deal with the appalling spectacle of friends and family members allying themselves to Nazis, white supremacists, the QAnon cult, anti-vaxxers, neo-Confederates, etc. But look at it full in the face. Don't deny what is happening.

Natus wrote:

You also can't be a Trumpist and be "100% anti-Nazi." That's not how it works.

BULLsh*t! And I’m calling that out as a poisoning the well fallacy combined with some kind of weird inverted no true Scotsman fallacy.

Stengah wrote:

It's appeasing because you insist he's still a good person who just disagrees with you.

Maybe you mean something other than appeasement.

773160-AD-2-EC7-4523-AC74-6107-F8-A4-C601

I don’t do any of those things when I interact with Chuck.

Chuck is a decent human being who would likely run into a burning building to try to save a life regardless of that person’s race. Perhaps you’re making the same mistake that most far right folks make in conflating the meaning of racist and white supremacist.

It’s best to think of racism as something you do rather than something you are. And by the way, to be human is to be racist. We are hardwired that way and must fight against those natural tendencies. The same goes for anti racist. Anti racism is something you do, not something you are. White supremacist is something you are, since it’s an identity that one must take on.

And finally, it’s possible for someone to be a victim of a misinformation campaign and still be a good person. And maybe that bolded statement is really where you and I disagree.

I’m an atheist, but I do hold some religious beliefs. Universal Unitarianism has seven principles that are the foundation of their beliefs. 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person. 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations. 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I’m not perfect and I don’t always follow these principles, but I really do try. So now please tell me. How would you have me interact with Chuck?

Black Children Were Jailed for a Crime That Doesn’t Exist. Almost Nothing Happened to the Adults in Charge.

It's a long story. It's an infuriating story. But it is very much worth the read as are just about everything else ProPublica writes.

The TL;DR is that back in 2016 Murfreesboro, Tennessee police came to Hobgood Elementary School and arrested eleven black children--the oldest was 12--for the crime of "criminal responsibility for conduct of another” because they had been caught on a video of two younger boys fighting.

The children were arrested, handcuffed, and hauled off to be booked at Rutherford County's 64-bed juvenile detention center (one child had to stay at the school so she could have the school nurse give her a insulin injection to treat her diabetes before joining the rest) and locked up.

Only 5% of juvenile cases in Tennessee result in the children being held at detention centers. In Rutherford County 48% of juvenile cases resulted in the child being locked up.

This is because the county was secretly following a "process" cooked up by Rutherford County's only juvenile court judge who's held that elected position since 2000. She believes she is on a "mission from God" to combat a breakdown in morals when it comes to children. This is probably why during her first year as a juvenile referee--one step below a judge--she illegally ordered 191 kids locked up for up to 10 days because they cursed during hearings.

Instead of doing what other juvenile judges did--avoid arresting children or detaining them and, instead, issue court summons--the Rutherford County judge *required* every child to be arrested, cuffed, transported to the detention center, processed, and then charged. Even for things like truancy.

The official in charge of the juvenile detention center modified the facility's written manual to include a "filter system" that would determine whether the child would be released or held. That system boiled down to whether or not the child was considered a "TRUE threat." If the detention facility personnel deemed a kid a "TRUE threat," then they would be locked up. The manual included the "TRUE threat" classification, but did not define it or explain exactly what kinds of behaviors made a kid a "TRUE threat." It was really just the whim of their jailors.

Then it turns out that the charge all the children were arrested on doesn't exist. It was cooked up by the county's judicial commissioners. Tennessee doesn't require prosecutors to be the one who review cases and determine charges. That duty can be off-loaded to judicial commissioners who are recommended by judges and appointed by county commissioners. The job qualifications are a valid drivers license and a high school degree.

Again, it's an absolutely f*cked up and infuriating read made all the worse because most of the players--from the cops to the judge and beyond--are all still working and you know this story is replicated in countless counties across America.

RawkGWJ wrote:
Natus wrote:

You also can't be a Trumpist and be "100% anti-Nazi." That's not how it works.

BULLsh*t! And I’m calling that out as a poisoning the well fallacy combined with some kind of weird inverted no true Scotsman fallacy.

Stengah wrote:

It's appeasing because you insist he's still a good person who just disagrees with you.

Maybe you mean something other than appeasement.

773160-AD-2-EC7-4523-AC74-6107-F8-A4-C601

I don’t do any of those things when I interact with Chuck.

Chuck is a decent human being who would likely run into a burning building to try to save a life regardless of that person’s race. Perhaps you’re making the same mistake that most far right folks make in conflating the meaning of racist and white supremacist.

It’s best to think of racism as something you do rather than something you are. And by the way, to be human is to be racist. We are hardwired that way and must fight against those natural tendencies. The same goes for anti racist. Anti racism is something you do, not something you are. White supremacist is something you are, since it’s an identity that one must take on.

And finally, it’s possible for someone to be a victim of a misinformation campaign and still be a good person. And maybe that bolded statement is really where you and I disagree.

I’m an atheist, but I do hold some religious beliefs. Universal Unitarianism has seven principles that are the foundation of their beliefs. 1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person. 2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations. 7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I’m not perfect and I don’t always follow these principles, but I really do try. So now please tell me. How would you have me interact with Chuck?

Your interactions with Chuck aren't when you're appeasing him, it's when you defend him as a good person to others. You should keep doing what you're doing when you talk to Chuck, it's good to leave a line of communication open for him to be able to find his way back with, just don't kid yourself that he would side with you over them when push comes to shove.

Stengah wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

773160-AD-2-EC7-4523-AC74-6107-F8-A4-C601

Your interactions with Chuck aren't when you're appeasing him, it's when you defend him as a good person to others. You should keep doing what you're doing when you talk to Chuck, it's good to leave a line of communication open for him to be able to find his way back with, just don't kid yourself that he would side with you over them when push comes to shove.

Please take another look at the definition of appease. I really do think this is the source of both of our frustrations. I’m not appeasing Chuck. I’m not defending his position. I call Chuck out on his bullsh*t just as I’m calling you out on yours.

And I’m sure I’ll never convince you of this, just like I’ll never convince Chuck that he’s being lied to and victimized, but Chuck would side with me if push came to shove. We’ve been friends for 20 years and union brothers for even longer. Chuck and I respect each other and we choose to be friends regardless of our differing opinions. Blood is thicker than water.

Edit: because I just got to the end of this week’s pod…

The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.

::chef’s kiss::

You are ignoring reality to relieve a feeling of guilt or sadness over your friend being a bad person. It's an entirely normal reaction because it's not an easy thing to acknowledge. But you're taking someone who believes damaging things and claiming he's still a good person, he's just misled. You're making an excuse on his behalf, which is where the appeasement is happening. I hope you're right about Chuck being willing to pick you over his right wing heroes if the stakes were higher, but he's already picking them over you when the stakes are low. Given how many people will let their actual family members and even themselves die before they admit they're wrong about this stuff, I highly doubt it.

Super weird how when anyone suggests we not descend into reactionary necropolitics they get jumped on for placating, appeasing, or over-accommodating the MAGA chuds when all that is being suggested is that you don’t act exactly like them.

OG_slinger wrote:

Black Children Were Jailed for a Crime That Doesn’t Exist. Almost Nothing Happened to the Adults in Charge.

It's a long story. It's an infuriating story. But it is very much worth the read as are just about everything else ProPublica writes.

The TL;DR is that back in 2016 Murfreesboro, Tennessee police came to Hobgood Elementary School and arrested eleven black children--the oldest was 12--for the crime of "criminal responsibility for conduct of another” because they had been caught on a video of two younger boys fighting.

The children were arrested, handcuffed, and hauled off to be booked at Rutherford County's 64-bed juvenile detention center (one child had to stay at the school so she could have the school nurse give her a insulin injection to treat her diabetes before joining the rest) and locked up.

Only 5% of juvenile cases in Tennessee result in the children being held at detention centers. In Rutherford County 48% of juvenile cases resulted in the child being locked up.

This is because the county was secretly following a "process" cooked up by Rutherford County's only juvenile court judge who's held that elected position since 2000. She believes she is on a "mission from God" to combat a breakdown in morals when it comes to children. This is probably why during her first year as a juvenile referee--one step below a judge--she illegally ordered 191 kids locked up for up to 10 days because they cursed during hearings.

Instead of doing what other juvenile judges did--avoid arresting children or detaining them and, instead, issue court summons--the Rutherford County judge *required* every child to be arrested, cuffed, transported to the detention center, processed, and then charged. Even for things like truancy.

The official in charge of the juvenile detention center modified the facility's written manual to include a "filter system" that would determine whether the child would be released or held. That system boiled down to whether or not the child was considered a "TRUE threat." If the detention facility personnel deemed a kid a "TRUE threat," then they would be locked up. The manual included the "TRUE threat" classification, but did not define it or explain exactly what kinds of behaviors made a kid a "TRUE threat." It was really just the whim of their jailors.

Then it turns out that the charge all the children were arrested on doesn't exist. It was cooked up by the county's judicial commissioners. Tennessee doesn't require prosecutors to be the one who review cases and determine charges. That duty can be off-loaded to judicial commissioners who are recommended by judges and appointed by county commissioners. The job qualifications are a valid drivers license and a high school degree.

Again, it's an absolutely f*cked up and infuriating read made all the worse because most of the players--from the cops to the judge and beyond--are all still working and you know this story is replicated in countless counties across America.

Well that is the single most awful thing I have read lately.

Just drive through Tennessee into Alabama with the radio set to a religous/political talk station. I guarantee you'll be questioning the life choices that brought you there by the time you reach your destination.

Hell, there's a couple religious/talk stations in the wasteland of western Illinois that are nearly as bad.

Mississippi was the worst I've driven through for radio selections though.

Farscry wrote:

Hell, there's a couple religious/talk stations in the wasteland of western Illinois that are nearly as bad.

Mississippi was the worst I've driven through for radio selections though.

That is all religious talk shows.