"If The Goal Is To Save Black Lives, It's Not Working"
Peter Moskos is a sociologist who worked as a cop in Baltimore, and he has some perspective on the "defunding" the police issue. Tom Slater talks to him at Spiked:
'If the goal is to save black lives, it's not working. If the goal is to get rid of police, it's working', says Peter Moskos, professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and a former Baltimore cop.In the wake of the brutal police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, protests have erupted nationwide, and politicians have responded by cutting and disempowering police.
Meanwhile, crime has spiralled in precisely the communities the Black Lives Matter movement hopes to defend. 'We're dismantling the NYPD now, and violence has gone up 200 per cent', he says.
About Floyd, he writes:
The universal condemnation of that sadistic killing and the swift action taken against Chauvin were a rare example, he goes on, of the system actually working.
'Everyone has condemned the killing, including police unions. I've never seen that before', he says. 'The guy was charged and arrested. That is our system of justice.'
But the protests nevertheless spread like wildfire, burnishing a long-running narrative about racist cops and resurrecting the Black Lives Matter movement.
This has prompted drastic political responses not just in Minneapolis, where the city council voted to abolish its police department, but also across the country.
In NYC, mayor Bill de Blasio has cut the police budget, halted the hiring of more officers, and disbanded the NYPD's plain-clothes 'anti-crime' unit, credited with taking thousands of illegal guns off the street.
The result:
This is just obscene: "Stray bullets ended the life of teen Bronx hoops star Brandon Hendricks on June 28, and 1-year-old Brooklyn boy Davell Gardner, shot dead in his stroller on July 13..."
— Amy Alkon (@amyalkon) August 2, 2020
One-year-old child "shot dead IN HIS STROLLER."
De Blasio: Um...measures. https://t.co/CNOJGwAcyo
Again from Spiked:
There are thousands of police departments in the US, all with varying records, practises and problems. But the protests, Moskos says, take no account of this, leading politicians in cities where police are actually getting a lot of things right to cave in to demands to defund police.It is ultimately black and Hispanic communities, Moskos says, who will pay the price for all this. Defunding or defanging police is 'going to cause more people to die, and more black people to die', he says, bluntly.
...For Moskos, it seems, the anti-police movements of today fit into this tradition of progressive paternalism, of well-meaning white reformers pushing their morality and ideological experiments on to the poor.
'It's a bunch of white progressives telling black people that they don't need police', he tells me. 'They could try it in their neighborhood first, but they don't want to do that.'
Over 93% of black homicides were committed by blacks before this lie started.
This suggests that BLM is a) not talking to the right people, 2) lying about their cause.
Reasoning Deficit Disorder has the country in a tighter grip than any Chinese virus.
Radwaste at August 3, 2020 4:15 AM
Radwaste,
I don't know why this seems so very difficult for you to grasp.
The cause for BLM is to reduce the number of black folks killed by officers of the law using unreasonable and excessive force.
The following statement is a complete red herring:
"Over 93% of black homicides were committed by blacks before this lie started."
It is also true that 84% of white homicide victims are killed by white folks.
None of this has anything to do with the issue of police brutality that BLM is interested in addressing.
"Reasoning Deficit Disorder" indeed.
Artemis at August 3, 2020 8:03 AM
The goal has never been to save, or even improve, black lives. It has always been a race hustle, about using upper class guilt (black or white) to appropriate the stuff, position, and comfort of well-off people (black, white, or otherwise).
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2020 8:25 AM
Defunding the police leaves hoodlums able to run free to pillage, loot, or shoot whomever they choose in those communities. This is remarkably bad, and has serious consequences that the defunders haven't contemplated.
I've been harping on this the last few days, but as Instapundit pointed out communities have been policing themselves far longer than Robert Peel's conception of policing came into being.
That community policing tends to be favorable to the community members and not nearly as favorable to trouble makers and outsiders.
You'll get justice being meted out immediately and without a real attempt at respecting the rights of the accused, or even being proportionate to the crime.
The time to be a hood is that period between when the local constabulary is stood down, and the night watch is stood up. After that? might want to cool your jets.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 3, 2020 9:27 AM
Artemis thinks radwaste is missing the point. But he is not. If BLM was really interested only in cops not killing unarmed people or arresting innocent people, they would bring back policy proposals they had after Ferguson about police reform. But they have gone way out in left field. Defund police? This is a hippy dippy concept out of touch with the real world. In times before police, every citizen carried a weapon at all times, travelers (even pilgrims) went in caravans for safety, and women did not go out alone. The murder rate in old london was higher than the worst slum today. Imagine if a gang was not confronted and busted: they would just take over a neighborhood. No punishment for murderers? Really? There is talk about closing prisons too, as if prisons cause crime. This is one of the most dangerous ideas I have ever heard. In minneapolis when the cops were told not to interfere, 150 homes and businesses burned and people died.
cc at August 3, 2020 12:02 PM
BLM sees defunding of police as a first step in establishing sovereign racial enclaves where policing is handled by politically aligned quasi-police organizations. It's in their earlier materials (circa 2016 ), which you can still find in internet archives.
George Floyd's death is just a pretext. This is a longstanding agenda among elements of the Left. That's why so many orgs and municipal governments were ready with messaging & policy in support of that plan as soon as the protesting started.
moo at August 3, 2020 1:12 PM
Shut up, Artie. When you get close to any point you cover it up with bloviation.
Cops, you say? Ok, I'll play your stupid game.
Young black men are ahead over 18:1, killing police, who kill 0.004% of all blacks killed.
And that number INCLUDES black police.
Happy?
Of course not. You need something to whine about, and you've never been outside where anything real could happen to you.
If only you could prostrate yourself before one of those people who curiously can't help themselves, even though Hispanics fight across a thousand miles to get to a job a mere bus ride away for the average rioter. You'd squeal with delight.
Radwaste at August 3, 2020 2:38 PM
Radwaste,
We are not talking about a baseball game here... no one here is "ahead".
That you see deaths as a competition is the reason why you don't understand.
Police aren't "behind" when it comes to killing people.
In a system with proper functioning law enforcement the police *should* be behind... and by a substantial margin.
The job of the police isn't to even the score, it is to enforce the law using the minimum force necessary to do so and not to escalate confrontations.
That you see this entire issue as a competition between police and black folks is the reason you don't get it.
Aremis at August 3, 2020 3:39 PM
The problem with Black Lives Matter is that the narrative on which it is founded was established on a bed of lies. Under "What We Believe" on its Web site, BLM says:
And elsewhere BLM says:
These are false narratives.
Trayvon Martin was killed, but in self defense. He attacked George Zimmerman and was slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk when Zimmerman shot him.
"Justice for Mike Brown" was served. He was not murdered. He charged a police officer shortly after he had attacked the same officer and tried to steal his gun. This was after he had strong-arm robbed a box of cigars from a nearby convenience store. "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" was a lie, debunked by witnesses to the incident.
The greatest danger to the lives of young black men is not the "racist police" or "systemic racism," but other young black men, armed and angry.
Under BLM's WhatMatters2020 campaign Web site, the organization outlines it 2020 goals:
The campaign focus items are listed as:
Gee, these sound suspiciously like the talking points of the socialist left wing of the Democratic Party; and not a non-partisan group dedicated solely to ending police brutality.
"...and our allies" in Goal #3 includes Movement 4 Black Lives, whose agenda includes, according to the Heritage Foundation, calls for:
The founders of BLM are open and enthusiastic supporters of Nicolas Maduro's socialist dictatorship in Venezuela.
BLM is not about protecting black people form the police, but stirring up animosity and anger for political ends.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2020 5:04 PM
Lenin's useful idiots weren't stupid. They were naive.
Naive, too, are socialism's modern-day useful idiots who think this time they'll do socialism right. They think big government will be a benevolent overlord, when it never has been in the past. They don't understand that a centrally-planned system invites, nay requires, absolute control.
The modern day useful idiots take leftwing organizations at their word, but see sinister conspiracies in everything rightwing organizations do or say.
So, to them, BLM is concerned only with racism and police brutality because that's what it publicly says it is. Any claims to the contrary are blithely dismissed as rightwing propaganda.
Meanwhile, to them the TEA Party was an armed racist mob bent on overthrowing the government of the first black president. This despite the TEA Party not indulging in violence, graffiti, and looting during its marches, unlike its leftist counterparts, the Occupy Movement, Antifa, and BLM.
Now, not every left-leaning organization is committed to establishing a socialist dictatorship; the ACLU comes to mind, along with the Sierra Club, and perhaps Move On. Likewise, not every right-leaning organization is the second coming of Hitler - the Heritage Foundation, The Club for Growth, and The Federalist Society all seem pretty dedicated to non-violent political activism and the conservative principle of limited government.
BLM is not like those other groups. Its own leaders have promised to tear the system down if they don't get their way. Um, guys, that's not what benevolent organizations dedicated to democratic action do.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2020 5:56 PM
Conan Says:
"The greatest danger to the lives of young black men is not the "racist police" or "systemic racism," but other young black men, armed and angry."
There is a logical problem with statements such as this.
It is a red herring.
Such an argument is the functional equivalent of trying to discredit causes looking to raise funds to combat breast cancer by saying the following:
The greatest risk of cancer death for women is not breast cancer, but lung cancer.
People should be free to fight for the causes they want to without you jumping in to tell them what their priorities should be.
If the BLM folks want to prioritize police brutality over community violence that is a judgment call for them to make.
Only a lunatic would jump into the middle of a breast cancer awareness rally to inform them that they have the wrong cause and should really be focusing their attention on lung cancer.
Furthermore, it is possible to deal with both of these issues in separate ways.
It isn't an either or situation.
Many of the same folks involved in BLM are also interested in reducing community violence... just not as part of the BLM movement.
The same that we don't dilute the focused message of pink ribbons by confusing it with other cancer causes.
Artemis at August 3, 2020 6:40 PM
Artie, go back and read the entire post. As usual, you're cherry-picking one paragraph out of context for your rebuttal.
BLM is not trying to cure breast cancer. It is the cancer. The BLM folks are the ones stirring up anger and violence. Their entire narrative is a lie.
And you? You're one of the "useful idiots" in the succeeding post, believing every lie BLM tells you; with a smile on your face because they promised you they were the good guys and you so desperately want life to be as simple as good guys vs. bad guys.
Let me clarify things for you, Artie. Michael Brown was not murdered. Trayvon Martin was not murdered. Breonna Taylor was not murdered. George Floyd's death by police misconduct was condemned by both sides of the political aisle; even by the police unions (that almost never happens). His death, and the others, were twisted and used by BLM to incite the turmoil they needed. If it hadn't happened, some other pretext would have been invented.
These stories that BLM keeps repeating are lies, manipulated in order to stir up anger and chaos. Political power is the goal of BLM, not justice - and the internecine warfare stirred up by the manufactured racial unrest is the path to it.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2020 8:32 PM
Conan,
I am not cherry picking, I am pointing out a flaw in your logic.
It is irrational and controlling to try and dictate to other people what their social priorities should be.
It is your opinion that BLM "is the cancer"... good luck convincing people who are advocating against police brutality that they are "the problem".
Every time I watch you post anything I feel like I might as well be watching a fox news opinion piece... nothing you say is evidence of original or credible thought. Just regurgitated nonsense from talking heads.
"Breonna Taylor was not murdered."
It is comments like these that make it abundantly clear that all of this has gone over your head.
You just don't get it... but I know you are utterly convinced that you do... it even seems like you think you get it *better* than the BLM folks.
I will try and explain, but I am sure like everything else inconvenient to what you want to believe it will go in one ear and out the other.
The BLM movement is concerned with police brutality and the policies in practice that results in the deaths of black folks that never had to escalate to that level.
That you want to couch everything in terms of "murder" is just you playing word games.
A better way to look at it is avoiding negligence and wrongful death.
Breonna Taylor was asleep in her bed and was shot 8 times by officers of the law serving a no-knock warrant at the wrong location.
In other words... police broke into her living space and killed her while she was asleep while serving a warrant for a person who lived miles away in a completely different location where the warrant actually applied.
"Murder" is an interesting word because it smuggles in a whole host of requirements that aren't needed to recognize the failure that took place.
Someone died who should not have died... it happened at the hands of the police.
That you are only interested in "murder" is your pet project.
Other folks are justified to be concerned about police breaking into the wrong living space and killing people while they are asleep.
Artemis at August 3, 2020 10:51 PM
Smuggles? No, "murder" has a specific legal definition and Breonna's death, while tragic, does not fit that definition.
Artie, I've covered in detail the entire failure of the police in the Taylor case in the first post on Sunday's thread. No one is arguing the police were innocent in her death, but "murder" it was not. It was not racism, either, that killed her.
It's down to a stupidly executed no-knock warrant, Breonna's casual friendship with a drug-dealing ex, and a nervous new boyfriend. The Louisville City Council recognized this and banned no-knock warrants in the wake of the tragedy. The police used far too much firepower in executing the warrant, firing into a "soft target" dwelling despite limited visibility.
We're all concerned about that, Artie, or haven't you been reading anything posted on this blog? We've all expressed concerns about militarizing the police, no-knock warrants, asset seizure, excessive court fees, etc.
Artie, the police did not go to the "wrong living space" this time.
They went to an dwelling where a drug dealer, Breonna's ex, was receiving mail and packages and where his car was often seen parked, making her place a legitimate concern. The warrant on her place was served simultaneously with two others. The drug-dealing ex-boyfriend was the target of all three warrants.
Her place was considered a "soft target" so the police knocked first. Her new boyfriend, frightened of Breonna's drug-dealing ex-boyfriend and his associates, armed himself with his legal handgun instead of ascertaining the identity of the people pounding on the door at that hour or calling 911. When the police burst in, he opened fire and wounded a police officer. At that point, the police recklessly brought entirely too much firepower to bear and Breonna was killed.
This isn't a black-and-white case of police racism, as BLM (and you) alleges. BLM has simplified it to us-vs.-them for political gain. You, on the other hand, simplified it to black-and-white because you seem to be unable to process the world in other-than-black-and-white terms.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 4:58 AM
Conan Says:
"Smuggles? No, "murder" has a specific legal definition and Breonna's death, while tragic, does not fit that definition."
Of course it has a specific legal definition Conan.
The word "murder" is also entirely irrelevant in this discussion because the BLM folks are not solely focused on "murder".
You are smuggling in rhetorical conditions that have nothing to do with this discussion.
Whether or not Breonna was "murdered" isn't why her death is of concern to the BLM folks.
They are concerned about her death due to the fact that serious flaws in the activities of law enforcement directly resulted in her death.
That is a problem.
That you want to chant "but she wasn't murdered"... is entirely beside the point and just a distraction from the core issues.
"It's down to a stupidly executed no-knock warrant..."
Right, which is precisely the kind of action the BLM folks are trying to addresses.
One of their principle policy proposals is to do away with no-knock warrants.
They aren't safe for officers of the law and they aren't safe for innocent residents within the dwellings.
The fundamental problem is that if a no knock warrant is executed on a residence in which no one has committed any crime, it is reasonable for them to assume they are the victim of a break in and then try to defend their home... this can then result in the officers gunning you down simply for you trying to protect your residence, which under normal circumstances is completely legal... the NRA are staunch advocates of this kind of thing.
Conservatives should not be in favor of no knock warrants for this very reason because it puts everyone at risk of getting killed simply by owning a lawful firearm and trying to defend your home from an unknown intruder.
"No one is arguing the police were innocent in her death, but "murder" it was not."
No one here is arguing it is "murder" either Conan. I certainly know I haven't advanced that argument.
This is what I mean by you smuggling in the term.
You want to have a discussion about whether or not Breonna was "murdered"... but that isn't necessary to argue that something went really wrong and deserves advocacy and community response.
That is one of the goals of the BLM folks... this whole "murder" rhetoric is just a red herring.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 7:53 AM
Conan Says:
"This isn't a black-and-white case of police racism, as BLM (and you) alleges."
I also never made any use of the word "racism" with regard to Breonna Taylor.
If you need to make up the arguments of the person you are chatting with, then you aren't having an honest conversation.
Nothing new here...
Artemis at August 4, 2020 7:57 AM
Poor Artemis. He is proof of the old adage "None are so blind as those who will not see."
Put even more simply (for Artemis' sake): "Understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant."
Jeff at August 4, 2020 8:14 AM
Artie, BLM, WNBA players, and others, are demanding that the police officers involved in Taylor's death be arrested and tried for - wait for it - murder.
No red herring.
As for allegations that racism playing a role in her death From NPR):
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 8:53 AM
Jeff,
The possibility also exists that folks on the far right of the political spectrum do not properly understand a political movement from the other side of the aisle.
But as per usual folks on the right believe they even understand political left movements *better* than folks on the left.
I do agree with the following statement though:
"Understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant."
It just applies to the folks insisting that community crime has anything relevant to do with police brutality, that somehow ratios between police killed and black folks killed matters in this discussion, or that the word "murder" is relevant when discussing police brutality and police overreach.
The term "murder" is interesting because it can be defined into or out of existence by fiat.
Escaped slaves weren't "murdered" for example when they were beaten to death... because "murder" requires a legal framework.
State violence and state sponsored killing of people is pretty much never defined as "murder" because it is made legal.
I have to assume that the folks here know this, which makes the entire involvement of the word "murder" utterly useless when concerning law enforcement action.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 8:55 AM
Conan Says:
"Artie, BLM, WNBA players, and others, are demanding that the police officers involved in Taylor's death be arrested and tried for - wait for it - murder."
They aren't lawyers Conan.
Surely you understand that there is a colloquial usage of the term murder.
People do this kind of thing all the time.
When a drunk driver gets into an accident and someone dies it isn't "murder" either... yet I would think you could forgive a mother if in court for a negligent homicide case she said "that guy murdered my baby!!!"
I am aware that legal terminology is different than colloquial usage... not everyone else is so precise.
In any case, as I explained to Jeff... escaped slaves who were beaten to death with premeditation weren't "murdered" either because the law didn't value or protect the lives of people in bondage.
I would hope you could look beyond the stupidity in human language at times and actually focus on meaning... but you seem incapable of doing so... it appears to be beyond your capability.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 9:01 AM
First of all, no one here is on the "far right" of the political spectrum. Second, that spectrum is more correctly a box matrix since the linear spectrum is outdated, dating as it does from the French Revolution in 1789. Fascists are authoritarian collectivists, as are communists.
In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt describes a study he did in which people of all sides of the political aisle were asked to answer as "the other guy" would.
Liberals were unable to accurately answer as conservatives and moderates, but conservatives and moderates much more accurately answered as liberals.
In the book, Haidt then goes on to attack Ronald Reagan's rhetoric and conservatives in general, but the main point here is that it's not conservatives who fail to understand and tend to mischaracterize liberals, but the other way around.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 9:12 AM
Conan Says:
"First of all, no one here is on the "far right" of the political spectrum."
People of extreme political views often do not see their views as extreme.
I assure you, the views of many folks on this board are anything but main stream or moderate.
Your views for example are not main stream or moderate.
You are closer to the "far right" than to the center Conan.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 9:26 AM
Conan,
Also... I made no claims that liberals were good at understanding conservative view points.
I think people in general have great difficulty putting themselves in other peoples shoes.
What I am telling you is that your understanding of what the BLM folks stand for is deeply flawed.
You can continue to insist you understand a left leaning group better than I do... but it is highly unlikely that is the case.
That it may be true that conservatives do a better job understanding liberal view points than the converse says nothing about their ability to understand left leaning view points better than people who lean left.
Get it?
The issue at hand is you are focused on all the wrong things.
It is kind of like all the conservatives who insist in responding "All lives matter" to BLM folks... people who do that have a deep misunderstanding of what BLM stands for.
I know you don't feel that way... you feel you understand what is really going on... but you are way off.
If you took even a few minutes to drop the nonsense and try to empathize with these folks you might find you have substantial common ground.
Issues with no-knock warrants are just the tip of the iceberg where BLM interests and some conservative principles should have substantial overlap.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 9:38 AM
You kinda proved Conan's point Arty. Conan is in no way far right. He is actually very moderately right, at least as far as left-right measurements go. More accurately I would call him a Goldberg Republican or a New York Republican. I don't know if Conan would be flattered or horrified by those labels, but that is where I put him. By contrast I am much much farther right that he is. But as he mentions such measurements are inherently inaccurate in the current environment.
If you cared to actually read what others write you would understand why there is no common ground. After all, they wrote why.
Ben at August 4, 2020 11:03 AM
And what I'm telling you is what I read on BLM's own Web site. I'll take their word over yours as to what they stand for.
==================================================
Hmm, moderately right? I'll go along with that. Maybe more Goldwater than Rockefeller, but I won't quibble. I'm not at all a social conservative, although I do have a healthy respect for traditional values, mores, and norms.
==================================================
I'll take your word for it, Artie. I don't watch Fox News - nor MSNBC, nor CNN, for that matter.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 12:03 PM
“Hmm, moderately right? I'll go along with that. Maybe more Goldwater than Rockefeller, but I won't quibble. I'm not at all a social conservative, “
I usually describe myself as a Buckley Republican. However being a pure capitalist (a la favoring unrestricted trade with regimes that use slave labor) is getting extremely close to pure socialism which has the goal of making us all slaves working for the benefit of the anointed and their government apparatchiks.
I’ve modified my views a bit as the information has come in about how one sided some of these free trade agreements are.
I’m not the naive libertarian I was at the age of 25.
Isab at August 4, 2020 1:09 PM
I started out as a die-hard free trader myself. However, I've come to realize you cannot have free trade between countries with widely disparate labor costs. Both countries have to benefit and cheap labor in one country destroys the industrial base in the other as labor-intensive industries chase cheap labor. Some sort of equalization of costs has to occur.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 1:50 PM
Ben Says:
"You kinda proved Conan's point Arty. Conan is in no way far right."
I never accused Conan of being "way far right"... here is what I actually said:
"You are closer to the "far right" than to the center Conan."
Let me put this in mathematical terms for you Ben.
Assume for a moment we have a number line that goes from -10 to 10.
Is 6.5 closer to 10 or to 0?
That 0 isn't at 10 in no way demonstrates that 6.5 is closer to 0 than to 10.
"By contrast I am much much farther right that he is."
Conan said no one on this board leans far right at all.
You aren't the most right leaning person here.
I remain unconvinced that this board is utterly free of very fringy right leaning folks with dubious politics.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 2:11 PM
I ment Goldwater not Goldberg. Cursed frail brain and such. And I am glad you aren't offended by the characterization Conan.
The one or two axis political spectrums don't apply much anymore. Boomer teachers really succeeded in implementing e unum pluribus. You need a couple hundred axis to describe things now. Which is just unwieldy. A more sensible way is to view things as the tribes they are.
That is a large part of what tripped up the NeverTrumpers. They were so used to running the party they thought they were the Republican Party instead of just one well respected tribe in the group. They refused to listen to the needs and complaints others had. They forced their way election after election. When they finally couldn't force their way anymore they threw a temper tantrum and burned many of the bridges they had built over decades. Some are still burning bridges and throwing tantrums to this day. At this point there really isn't a path back to the Republican Party for them. At least not for a generation or two.
Ben at August 4, 2020 2:18 PM
Conan Says:
"And what I'm telling you is what I read on BLM's own Web site. I'll take their word over yours as to what they stand for."
You've hung your hat on an incredibly empty and stupid argument.
Tell me again why you believe it is reasonable to call a movement a "cancer" because in your estimation they have misapplied the word "murder"?
Do you hold all political causes to these same standards of linguistic purity or just BLM?
Artemis at August 4, 2020 2:20 PM
No Arty, the people who regularly post here are not fringe right-wing. Kent for liberty maybe. But honestly I wouldn't be shocked if he periodically voted fringe Democrat. I am fairly mainstream rightwing. Conan is very much centrist. You are pretty fringe leftwing.
As Conan pointed out far left people tend to be very ignorant of anyone else's views. This has been highlighted by multiple studies and you exemplify the phenomenon.
Ben at August 4, 2020 2:26 PM
Ben Says:
"No Arty, the people who regularly post here are not fringe right-wing."
This is called shifting the goal posts Ben.
This was Conan's direct statement:
"First of all, no one here is on the "far right" of the political spectrum."
This isn't a statement about "regular" posters, whatever that is supposed to mean.
This is a statement that implies that everyone who posts here has political views that are more or less part of main stream politics.
This isn't actually true as far as I can tell.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 2:32 PM
I remain unconvinced that this board is utterly free of very fringy right leaning folks with dubious politics.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 2:11 PM
This isn’t something a normal adult would care deeply about.
Let’s just tally up the votes on November 3, shall we? Avoid the whole issue of trying the ferret out bad think.
Isab at August 4, 2020 2:36 PM
Isab,
If no one cares, when why are Ben and Conan obsessing over it?
I never even called anyone specifically "far right".
I'm just noting some of my own observations.
Interestingly, one hallmark of "far right" politics is nationalistic values subsuming socioeconomic principles generally associated with conservatism.
I'll just go ahead and quote you here:
"I’ve modified my views a bit as the information has come in about how one sided some of these free trade agreements are."
In other words... you were all for pure capitalism until you realized it was coming into conflict with your nationalistic values.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 2:44 PM
In other words... you were all for pure capitalism until you realized it was coming into conflict with your nationalistic values.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 2:44 PM
Incorrect. It was coming into conflict with my *moral values*
Also I realized there is no such thing as pure capitalism. It doesn’t exist.
Isab at August 4, 2020 2:58 PM
Isab,
So when you were younger you didn't realize that outsourced labor was taking advantage of people in horrible working conditions?
The political left was making that argument for ages and it never even penetrated.
Only recently have you realize that taking financial advantage of impoverished folks across the globe is a moral failing?
In all seriousness though, that doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've watched this evolve for years. The political left was bringing up the moral argument about this for years only to be rebutted that capitalism was lifting all ships abroad and that those folks were happy to have those jobs to increase their standard of living... and that we benefitted from cheaper goods here at home was just capitalism doing its job!!!
What has happened in recent years is the chickens came home to roost though as since a good portion of the manufacturing jobs and factories were outsourced over seas to take advantage of cheap foreign labor... that lots of Americans have been left in the dirt without the kinds of decent jobs generation past used to have.
Only now has this been identified as a *moral* failing... only when the impact hit home in a negative way.
The political right didn't care about exploiting foreign labor so long as it meant cheap goods and decent jobs at home. Only when the decent jobs evaporated did their "morality" emerge.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 3:10 PM
Yes, Artie, you are a die-hard leftie who thinks he's a moderate. Your definition of "moderate" is someone only slightly to the right of you. In your example, you're sitting at -6.5 and claiming 0 is far right.
By your comments, it's apparent that you don't interact with people outside of your political bubble, or regularly read anyone with an opinion that doesn't reinforce your own prejudices.
"No one here is on the 'far right' of the political spectrum" does not mean the board is "utterly free of very fringy right leaning folks with dubious politics" at all times. We do get a visitor or two from way out there - the guy who called me a "cuckservative" because I disputed his hardcore white supremacy views comes to mind.
On occasion, we get fringe lefties and fringe libertarians on here, too. The regulars, however, are not on the fringes, but represent some pretty mainstream views from all quadrants on the grid. Get out of your bubble and you might realize that.
Your standard dishonest tactic of cherry-picking commentary and hyper-literal interpretation of out-of-context commentary is getting tiresome, Artie.
Linguistics is not why I called BLM a cancer, and you know it. The other things I posted about them are why I called them a cancer.
So, Artie, you go ahead and keep saying BLM is a peaceful advocacy group only out for justice. When the torch-bearing mob gets to your house, we'll see how peaceful you think they are then.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 3:54 PM
Conan Says:
"Yes, Artie, you are a die-hard leftie who thinks he's a moderate."
I think it is fair to say that overall I am on the political left... but I'm not "die-hard" about anything in particular.
I just follow the facts.
That facts have a liberal bias is not my fault. For example, my politics regarding climate change is driven by science... the science is aligned with the policies of the political left.
If the science was aligned with the policies of the political right I would then align right.
I just align with facts and evidence wherever it happens to land.
It is the same reason I end up at odds with fringy left folks... anti-vax people tend to be on the extreme left and those folks drive me crazy.
I just follow facts and evidence, that is all there is to it.
"We do get a visitor or two from way out there - the guy who called me a "cuckservative" because I disputed his hardcore white supremacy views comes to mind."
Great... then my observation should not strike you as unusual.
I never said you were far right Conan... just that you were closer to the far right than to the center.
This shouldn't be all that controversial.
"By your comments, it's apparent that you don't interact with people outside of your political bubble, or regularly read anyone with an opinion that doesn't reinforce your own prejudices."
I interact with you often and read what you have to say... are you inside my political bubble?
"When the torch-bearing mob gets to your house, we'll see how peaceful you think they are then."
The torch-bearing mob came out in Charlottesville as part of the Unite the Right rally.
One of their members murdered someone by running them over with their car.
Trump said the Unite the Right protest with the torches was comprised of "very fine people".
I'll worry about those folks over the BLM people getting shot in the face and teargassed.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 4:39 PM
Conan,
Another salient point is that the so-called riots that set you at odds with BLM have already been shown at least in some cases to be instigated by white supremacists:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-riots-identified-white/story?id=72051536
Are you implying that if a white supremacist shows up at a BLM protest and starts destroying property and inciting violence that the folks associated with BLM are responsible?
This is the fundamental issue Conan... sometimes people at odds with a movement purposefully cause trouble at a movement to try and discredit it in the minds of those who already are not politically on board.
There are white supremacist folks in this country who desire to incite a race war... and those folks see these protests as an opportunity to cause trouble.
Buying into that propaganda doesn't make you clever or insightful.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 4:49 PM
Of course you do. /sarcasm
"The facts" align that way if you conveniently ignore all the scientific arguments agains the current anthropogenic climate change fervor and the shoddy science behind the "hockey stick," the conspiracy to silence dissent exposed in the East Anglia emails, etc.
"At least in some cases...." You keep a firm grasp on that lifeline, hoping it will redeem you.
In the meantime, BLM has remained silent on the violence and property destruction, whether caused by BLM or white supremacists.
"...burn this system down," said the president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter. Yeah, sounds like he's really upset about white supremacists stirring up violence at BLM rallies.
Looks like those white supremacists aren't the only ones who want a race war.
Actually, you've taken the quote out of context. Again.
There were two marches in Charlottesville that day, demonstrations about - both pro and con - the removal of Confederate statues. The pro-removal side was a counter protest to the "Unite the Right" rally, named and organized by racist groups trying to appropriate the mantle of the political right in this country, not actually representing it. However, not everyone in attendance knew of the racists behind it. Some just wanted the statues left alone.
Both sides included people armed with sticks and other weapons. Chaos ensued when the more violent elements of the two groups met and began throwing things at each other.
After the two sides were separated, one of the white supremacists drove a car at high speed through the crowd, killing a young woman. The act was universally condemned by folks on the right and the left, including the president.
Later that same day, Trump said from his New Jersey golf club, "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. … It has no place in America. What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society. And no child should ever be afraid to go outside and play or be with their parents and have a good time. … We must love each other, respect each other and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally, we have to love each other."
Days later, Trump said, in a combative exchange with a reporter who insisted "neo-Nazis" were solely responsible for the violence, "Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." And that's the quote reporters, Democrats, and leftists took out of context and published as Trump's defense of white supremacists.
You say you only align with the facts and don't cherry pick quotes out of context, eh Artie? You sure about that?
Actually, you don't really interact with me. You preach at me - from inside your bubble. Artie, you don't read what I write to understand a different point of view, you read it to cherry pick quotes out of context and deliver harangues.
You claim that you "just align with facts and evidence wherever it happens to land." Yet, when asked to name one, just one, conservative or libertarian columnist you read regularly or one Republican you considered voting for, you couldn't name a single columnist and could only mutter something about not naming the single local Republican candidate because it might enable someone to figure out where you live and from that to identify you.
The thing is, I am actually closer to the center than to the far right, much closer. If you were at all the objective, bubble-free, and moderate leftist you claim to be, you'd see that. Ben even pointed that out to you, or tried to.
Both Isab and Ben are farther to the right than I am and they're actually fairly mainstream on most points. I've described myself in the past as basically a Goldwater conservative - fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. And, for the most part, I am.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2020 7:06 PM
Conan Says:
""The facts" align that way if you conveniently ignore all the scientific arguments agains the current anthropogenic climate change fervor and the shoddy science behind the "hockey stick," the conspiracy to silence dissent exposed in the East Anglia emails, etc."
No Conan... the facts align that way because they do.
Just like the facts aligned that the corona pandemic would still be with us when the weather got hot... despite many right wing politicians and vocal members of this very community ranting otherwise.
Some people know how to parse out scientific data... those people are called scientists.
Some people like to think they can parse out scientific data and countermand the professionals based on "common sense" and "internet research"... those people are called conspiracy theorists.
""At least in some cases...." You keep a firm grasp on that lifeline, hoping it will redeem you."
You don't seem all that concerned about white supremacists vandalizing public property and setting fires during BLM protest events.
That says a great deal about where you are coming from.
"Actually, you've taken the quote out of context. Again.
There were two marches in Charlottesville that day, demonstrations about - both pro and con - the removal of Confederate statues."
No Conan... you are just manipulating the rhetoric of white supremacists with torches and trying to turn it into a protest about statues.
The Unite the Right folks were marching with torches and chanting "the jews will not replace us"
What on earth does that kind of rhetoric have to do with Confederate statues?
Such folks cannot be described as "very fine people".
That you ignore the blatant antisemitism of the white supremacists at the Unite the Right rally ALSO says a great deal about where you are coming from.
Here is a clue for you... if you are marching with neo-nazi's at a rally and hear them chanting "the jews will not replace us" while carrying lit torches... you aren't a "very fine person".
"Artie, you don't read what I write to understand a different point of view, you read it to cherry pick quotes out of context and deliver harangues."
I read what you have to say Conan.
That you aren't particularly convincing is something you need to work on.
Put forth logically coherent arguments and you will be in better shape.
As it stands you have yet to show evidence that you are able to put together an argument without committing several logical fallacies.
"Yet, when asked to name one, just one, conservative or libertarian columnist you read regularly or one Republican you considered voting for, you couldn't name a single columnist and could only mutter something about not naming the single local Republican candidate because it might enable someone to figure out where you live and from that to identify you."
That is a lie... I told you I liked Colin Powell and would have voted for him in a heart beat.
What I refused to do was tell you anyone I have voted for in the past because I have no interest in sharing information describing places I have lived.
As for "columnists"... I don't get my information from columnists. I read primary sources from the associated press primarily and then look up information as necessary.
Why on earth would I regularly get information from a conservative or liberal columnist.
This is why your talking points always sound like they are regurgitated vomit from a conservative talking head... you review columnists with political persuasions.
That is a shit way to form your own opinion, but a great way to have your opinion spoon fed to you.
"If you were at all the objective, bubble-free, and moderate leftist you claim to be, you'd see that. Ben even pointed that out to you, or tried to.
Both Isab and Ben are farther to the right than I am and they're actually fairly mainstream on most points."
Conan... I know Isab and Ben are further to the right than you are.
Let's go back to the very beginning, shall we?
This is all I said:
"The possibility also exists that folks on the far right of the political spectrum do not properly understand a political movement from the other side of the aisle."
I didn't mention you or anyone else... I just stated what should be obvious.
People on one side of the political spectrum are not going to properly understand a political movement from the other side.
You would not find this the least bit controversial if I said that about people on the far left not properly understanding the positions of pro-life folks.
Yet here we are with you losing your shit because I point out that the reverse also holds.
You are more moderate than Isab and Ben... that is obvious and always has been to me.
You still aren't going to be confused with a centrist.
Artemis at August 4, 2020 7:39 PM
Of course you would have. Powell is the blank slate fantasy Republican for leftists. He's never had to articulate a policy or run against a leftist, so he remains the Democrat fantasy of a "good Republican," kinda like George W. Bush is now, with his friendship with Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi's nostalgia for him.
Remember when Bush was a racist, illiterate, corrupt, warmongering bumpkin who had only a passing familiarity with the English language and the IQ of a kumquat? Remember when he hated black people? Now, he gets invited to speak at the funeral of a civil rights icon.
Remember when John McCain disagreed with Bush and was crowned the "good Republican?" Then, he ran for president and became a war-mongering racist.
So, you claim to be moderate, yet the only politician on the other side of the aisle you can name for whom you harbor any regard is the guy who never ran for office and never dabbled in party politics - i.e., the safe choice, the blank slate.
No one said you should "get information" from columnists. I merely asked for a thinker with a different political viewpoint whom you regularly read or whose opinion you respect. And you couldn't name even one.
No, I read editorials, analyses, and opinions from sources on all over the political spectrum. No one political persuasion - left, right, or center - has all the answers.
No one is "ignoring" blatant, or even subtle, antisemitism. I'm not "okay" with the antisemitism of the far right, nor that of the far left; nor with racism of any kind.
Dispassionately describing the chain of events leading to the murder of an innocent is not in any way an endorsement of the idiotic views of those who committed the murder. Nor is pointing out that someone has selectively chosen the president's remarks and presented them out of context an endorsement of antisemitism or racism.
And, yes, the rally came about with and was centered around the announced removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville.
Conan the Grammarian at August 5, 2020 5:43 AM
Conan Says:
"Of course you would have. Powell is the blank slate fantasy Republican for leftists. He's never had to articulate a policy or run against a leftist, so he remains the Democrat fantasy of a "good Republican," kinda like George W. Bush is now, with his friendship with Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi's nostalgia for him.
Remember when Bush was a racist, illiterate, corrupt, warmongering bumpkin who had only a passing familiarity with the English language and the IQ of a kumquat? Remember when he hated black people? Now, he gets invited to speak at the funeral of a civil rights icon."
I still think Bush is an idiot who paints in his bathtub.
The reason I like Colin Powell isn't because he fits some fantasy of a "Good Republican"... it is because he has always struck me as a "Good Person".
Do you see the distinction Conan?... I am interested in the quality of his character... which in many respects beats out that of most Democrat politicians.
I also think he is a very qualified leader, a well respected individual on the world stage, and he appears to be a man of principle.
Are you staring to understand the qualities I am most interested in when it comes to political candidates?... I just want qualified and decent people in office.
"So, you claim to be moderate, yet the only politician on the other side of the aisle you can name for whom you harbor any regard is the guy who never ran for office and never dabbled in party politics - i.e., the safe choice, the blank slate."
Just one post ago you insisted that I never mentioned any Republican I would vote for.
That is called shifting the goal posts Conan.
The fundamental problem with the current set of Republican politicians is that they demonstrate a complete disregard for facts and evidence.
If this wasn't clear to you before it certainly should be at this point in the pandemic.
I'm not even sure what your criticism is supposed to mean... was I supposed to select a "dangerous" Republican to demonstrate that I don't vote straight ticket?
Of course I am going to select a "safe" Republican... just like I would opt to choose a "safe" Democrat... or a "safe" independent.
I'm not all that interested in voting for unqualified idiots simply because they are part of a particular team.
I understand you don't get that way of thinking, but that is because you are deeply partisan.
"No one said you should "get information" from columnists. I merely asked for a thinker with a different political viewpoint whom you regularly read or whose opinion you respect. And you couldn't name even one."
I read lots of people who hold different political view points than I do.
I mentioned you as an example, but apparently that didn't count.
I suppose you believe we are in ideological lock step... that is certainly news to me.
Part of the problem you are having here Conan is that you are not looking at things in an even way.
You demand that I regularly read opinion pieces of conservative "thinkers" to demonstrate that I am a political independent.
The issue at hand here is that I don't regularly read opinion pieces of liberal "thinkers" either.
I am treating both sides equally... I ignore the talking heads from both sides as much as possible.
That is even... demanding that I regularly read conservative opinion pieces to demonstrate a lack of partisanship when I don't regularly read liberal opinion pieces is devoid of logic... it is garbage reasoning.
It's not like I go around quoting liberal columnists here... I don't know if I've ever done that. The reason is simple, I actively try and avoid opinion piece nonsense no matter the political affiliation.
"And, yes, the rally came about with and was centered around the announced removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville."
Conan... let me clue you in on a few things.
When a group of folks carrying torches, flags with swastikas on them, and chanting "blood and soil" while circling a statue of Robert E. Lee... it doesn't take a genius to figure out it is a neo-nazi rally.
Swastikas and German nationalist slogans from the 1930's are not about American heritage or the confederacy.
Artemis at August 5, 2020 6:18 AM
Conan, where did you buy that bed of nails you sleep on? Because I have to admit your pain threshold is way above mine.
Ben at August 5, 2020 7:05 AM
Ben,
Why would Conan feel any pain... after all, he reads "editorials, analyses, and opinions from sources on all over the political spectrum."
Nothing I say should be outside of anything he already reads for leisure.
My comments should only cause discomfort for those who live inside a conservative thought bubble.
Artemis at August 5, 2020 7:40 AM
Tell me about it. This used to be fun forum with interesting viewpoints and debate.
"What the hell happened?" ~ Jake Holman
Conan the Grammarian at August 5, 2020 11:19 AM
Conan Says:
"Tell me about it. This used to be fun forum with interesting viewpoints and debate.
"What the hell happened?" ~ Jake Holman"
This is one of the funniest and most oblivious comments I have ever seen on this board.
You guys happened.
Your utter intolerance and disdain for any viewpoint that isn't in lockstep with certain politics drove everyone else away.
Some of you have even admitted to making it your mission to drive folks away.
So here we are.
You got what you wished for, your very own corner of the internet full of rude, obnoxious, unrepentant assholes that you all were drooling over.
If you wanted a fun forum with interesting viewpoints you would have operated differently.
Artemis at August 5, 2020 12:04 PM
Radical leftist keyboard warriors. The worst humans on the planet.
Jeff at August 5, 2020 6:40 PM
Jeff Says:
"Radical leftist keyboard warriors. The worst humans on the planet."
Ah yes... the tried and true "rational" stance that someone debating on the internet is *worse* than white supremacists chanting "blood and soil" while carrying torches and marching in lock step around the statue of an American traitor.
It's not that I am a "radical" anything Jeff, it's that you've lost the plot when it comes to moral evaluations.
Artemis at August 5, 2020 11:12 PM
Who said I was talking about you, Artie? Have you become a bit paranoid?
Jeff at August 6, 2020 7:38 AM
Jeff,
You're right... you didn't say you were talking about me.
Since no logical or reasonable person would confuse me with being a "radical leftist" based on my political positions I should never have presumed you were talking about me at all.
Only an irrational idiot would make such a claim.
Artemis at August 6, 2020 8:07 AM
Jeff,
I do stand by this part though:
"Ah yes... the tried and true "rational" stance that someone debating on the internet is *worse* than white supremacists chanting "blood and soil" while carrying torches and marching in lock step around the statue of an American traitor."
I mean seriously... only a complete moron would assert that "radical leftist" folks are *worse* than white supremacists.
Surely a dignified and logical person such as yourself just made a typo.
Artemis at August 6, 2020 8:12 AM
Leave a comment