@professorgerm's banner p

professorgerm

You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 12 12:41:49 UTC

				

User ID: 1157

professorgerm

You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 12 12:41:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1157

"The left" has quite clearly thought of them as The Good People for a long time. Doing things the right doesn't is a big part of that.

antifa

What exactly is the redeeming value in not coming down on antifa like a pile of bricks? Like, fine, "antifa's just an idea" and all that nonsense, but Rose City Antifa, anybody that showed up like a jackbooted thug wearing all black and started violence at any number of locations over the last several years.

They volunteered for violence, they put themselves out there. Why exactly do you need to care more about their wellbeing than they clearly do? Why not give Antifa up as the sacrificial goat they so clearly want to be?

the same enthusiasm

Half? A quarter? For the sake of ten normal people? How low do we have to go, here?

What constitutes a “serious attempt to resolve” this situation?

Ever see the movie Fail Safe? The book is good too but then you don't get the recommended dose of Walter Matthau. If you haven't...the US government bombs New York City as a costly signal for accidentally bombing Moscow to prevent further conflict.

One massive tragedy is traded for another to prevent an even bigger conflict. The negotiations are direct, between high-ranking individuals; the consequences immediate. How do you make such a trade when you're talking about distributed social phenomena across classes, across government and private sector and in-between, across generations?

You’ll rightly protest that you never had any control over the kind of person who would snap like that.

Decades ago, some terrorists and murderers did as terrorists and murderers do. They spent a little time in jail, then they got professorships, they got sinecures, they mentored a future president, they still get honorary degrees from one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in the world. No right wing terrorist or murderer has gotten a sinecure. Not one of them is lauded by polite society or treated as anything less than what they are.

You may want to say "but that's only two... or three... or anyways, it's not that many people!" But that's kind of beside the point; not that many versus zero is an infinite ratio. "The left" may be big and diverse, but some portion of that big diverse tent is far more vertically integrated than the right. To be clear, I don't want the right to start rewarding terrorists! I don't want the right to be better at protecting its scum. But the problem of "the left" treating their terrorists somewhere between tolerable and laudable instead of scum worthy of, at best, a life rotted away in prison, has existed a long time. On the somewhat less evil end of the bias problem: if you riot on the left, you get kid gloves; if you riot on the right, you get the book thrown at you (to be fair: unless your guy wins and you get a pardon).

I don't know what it looks like to undo that. I don't know how the leadership of today undoes terrible decisions and stupid social trends started 60 years ago or more.

Would jailing Angela Davis for her golden years make a difference? Unfair in some ways, a costly signal in some ways, but would it matter? Denouncing and cancelling Destiny in some bizarre post-modern Sister Soulja moment? It's something, I guess.

I don't know, man. I don't want to take another step towards The Troubles. All I know is that boilerplate denouncements aren't enough, and no one seems to be trying anything else.

Edit:

Maybe some time in the stockades

Tell you what, let's put Biden out and throw some tomatoes at him, January 21 2029 we'll do the same with Trump, everybody has a good laugh and we have a Political Jubilee Year.

Or Bill Clinton.

Really I just think it's funny that this crazy letter to the editor from 1996 is even digitized to find.

I'd make the trade, if this means people that had a che shirt or hammer and sickle poster in college are treated the same as if they'd had a swastika poster- that is, completely excluded from polite society.

then it must remain appropriate for non-violent pro-immigration extremists to refer to ICE agents as Nazis.

No, because the Nazis were a real and defined party, of which there are approximately zero surviving members. Referring to them that way is way more biased and way more loaded.

56% of "very liberal" and 73% of liberal respondents say it is "always or usually unacceptable" for a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose

90% and 91% for very conservative and conservative, respectively. Likewise,

55% and 68% say that "violence is never justified" "in order to achieve political goals".

88% and 83%.

You can quibble about the 50/50 comment, but man, I'd be bothered at just how much more acceptable being a ghoul and being a terrorist is among liberals; even if it's still less than half, it's twice as common as among conservatives.

most high ranking Democrats

Which is a much more selected and narrow grouping than Arjin's "Blue Tribe," even more so once you get into the issue of how to define high ranking.

Sure, Chuck Schumer has enough sense decency to not say "reaping the whirlwind" at that particular moment, but Ilhan Omar has less couth. Talking heads of various prominence, less still. The kinds of Blue Tribers that we might interact with online or in real life, less still again.

Whenever a school gets shot up

When a school gets shot up, there's no one that says "but they kinda deserved it." The downplaying is a totally different form.

There's a fringe of radicals who would still try to doxx/hurt/kill them, but they would look much worse in the eyes of the wider population than in the current status quo where the people they're fighting go around dressing and acting like supervillains.

I lost this kind of hope in the common left-liberal when otherwise-sane people with good careers started attacking random peoples' cars because of comments by the car manufacturer's CEO.

You're either overestimating the goodness of "normies" or underestimating the frequency of the fringe.

I think it wasn't nearly as bad as the Clinton campaign

I'm With Her was pretty bad, but I don't remember anything from Clinton's campaign was so bad as to top the infamous I'm A Man ad for incredibly cringe, absurd "listen to your betters" messaging.

if you start restricting the rights of individuals based on their genetic predispositions, why stop at black vs white?

While I will not speak for anyone else, I would much prefer to stop at "take legal colorblindness both seriously and literally."

I won't argue to restrict rights of individuals based on genetic predispositions. Can we agree to not grant people additional privileges based on genetic predispositions in terms of interacting with law and ignoring reality?

other general pain relievers like naproxem sodium and ibuprofen are roughly as therapeutically effective without the massive risk to your liver / accidental OD

For non-pregnant people, yes. But sources not linked to the US culture war suggest NSAIDs are potentially much worse during pregnancy than Tylenol, and can cause fetal defects and maternal hemorrhage risks. US sources suggest NSAIDs increase miscarriage risk early in pregnancy too.

the American right has not presented any credible alternative and instead doubled down on even worse distortions of their own, and burning down the whole thing

Give it a couple decades and the cycle will start again.

Mid-Atlantic here and it's an interesting split, mask-wearers I see are either older black people or (seemingly) younger, especially women, of funny hair color. Not major numbers of either though.

Shouldn’t conservatives, i.e. the party of law and order, be a fan of measures which promote public safety?

This assumes they perceived the COVID restrictions to have promoted public safety, and significantly biased (and capricious) enforcement blew that all to hell.

Biased vaccine distribution schedules also likely harmed public tolerance and public trust for any measures.

Is this actually a thing or is it yet another moral panic

Difficult to get data on afaict. Short version you've probably heard before is admin doesn't want too many suspensions (disparate impact; doesn't matter that the school is 90% black either), teachers eventually stop reporting unless the behavior is a severe threat, so maybe you can muddle it out from surveys of teacher unhappiness/early retirements, but I wouldn't be confident at all if someone said "suspensions are down so behavior can't be that bad."

From local teacher anecdotes, yes, it's a thing, but I don't know for sure how widespread.

the formative event for many right wing posters.

Long 2020 was a fascinating lesson in narrative development, enforcement, and the whole gamut of what well-meaning liberals will find ways to justify or otherwise turn a blind eye on.

And, once they've gotten it out of their system and no longer think it's good, the post-Long 2020 period has been a fascinating lesson in how quickly they forget.

We could, on a good day, probably have a nice and well-thought conversation on police reform, and I get the feeling that we'd agree on more than you might expect, though certainly not everything. Unfortunately for both of us, basically no one out in the real world wanted to have a well-thought and careful conversation; they all wanted to go insane or turn a blind eye to the insanity. So whatever I say here is less about police reform in general, and more about a particular form of racism and insanity that afflicts American culture and had an explosion in 2020.

the fact that we have anti-police riots in the US is a strong signal that there are serious problems with American policing

No, it's a strong signal that there is the perception of serious problems with American policing. The reality of the problems is, afaict, almost entirely disconnected from the perception and reactions to it.

Do you genuinely think that this arose from a singular incident?

Ehh... sort of? I think, clearly, bad police exist, but BLM and in particular the 2020 riots weren't really about bad police. BLM is about pie-in-the-sky pro-criminal advocacy, the about-face on bodycams being my primary evidence for this sentiment, and the 2020 riots were about people looking for a socially-sanctioned excuse to go out and get crazy on a spectrum between "block party" and "looting and revolution."

Video is powerful, everyone had cabin fever, and white-on-black crime makes American media go full stupid. If Chauvin had kneed Floyd in some camera-free back alley, it probably wouldn't have risen above local news. If Alexander Keung had been the primary cop instead of Chauvin, it probably wouldn't have risen above local news.

There'd be a lot less resentment and hostility if brutal or reckless cops were consistently punished for transgressions

I agree that they should be, but most of the resentment and hostility is downstream of other problems (ie, disparate impact and the confrontation clause). I think if cops policed themselves perfectly we'd still see much of the resentment and hostility.

The unarmed aspect doesn't really matter much.

I'm just commenting there on well-meaning liberals that have an aesthetic and moral privileging of certain populations based on race to being orders of magnitude wrong about reality.

Thousand.

I was trying to go with the "safe" answer, but yeah, I think there's a lot of merit to how much the rioting affected the murder rate. But Beej did post a recent update based on a Brookings analysis that the murder rate was already increasing in 2020 before The Happening, starting in early to mid March.

the problem with analysing this kind of thing is it kind of assumes malice on the part of the speaker

Surely with years of evidence it's safe to acknowledge Kimmel openly hates Republicans and the malice isn't so much assumed but a known intention?

This seems remarkably inoffensive to me.

How is, to boil the line down, "those assholes are point-scoring liars" not offensive?

I'm not saying he should've been fired for it, comedians are allowed to be partisan hacks and still get paid. But I don't understand the people who don't notice that it was intended to be offensive. It's obviously insulting, insulting the right (and people dying of covid) is a big part of Kimmel's schtick.

failing to lick the boot hard enough

You know, if you seemed like you were interested in a real conversation I'd be happy to both-sides the indifference problem, but this and your example seem like nice big flags that you're not. Let's try anyways-

Should we be worried that one of the central institutions for public order will mutiny if not granted impunity for their crimes?

I'm considerably more worried that the public order will mutiny if the police across the entire country are not universally perfect, since that's actually what happened. One bad cop treating one possibly-ODing drug addict badly means the necessary response is... billions of dollars in property damage across the country and a couple dozen extra murders? Damn, that's a heck of an exchange rate.

How many unarmed people do the police shoot, and how many do liberals think they shoot?

Anyway, don't many of his supporters acknowledge that he lies a lot, but say his lies are good car salesman style lies, whereas other politicians may not lie but they are selective with what they include and what they omit?

Trump lies all the time. As a result, many people never trust Trump (and yes, some trust him too much).

To quote the wisest of the Scott As, "the media very rarely lies." The problem being that too many people believe them when they do lie, so you end up with riots because people are orders of magnitude wrong about police behavior.

Joe lied about not pardoning Hunter. I suspect, in the long run, that whopper will have been more impactful than the vast majority of Trump's lies. But we'll have to wait a couple more administrations to really decide if it was a one-off massive insult to the office or a particularly dangerous precedent.

I continue to be fascinated by that brand of distraction, that Trump becomes the only standard (anything less is acceptable by default) and also the only person in the world with agency (no one else is blamed for actions he does in reaction, and any action generated reacting to Trump gets blamed on Trump).