My city, Minneapolis, On Fire: a story about white nationalism and it's consequences

[Politesse]

You said it would be appropriate to arrest someone if they were caught in the act. He was, the police were right there watching him do it. So he should have been detained before the murder was even accomplished, let alone before leaving the scene.

Well the other way to resolve this is to smuggle in an assumption that the law should operate differently for police.

The law must operate differently for police in many respects. But they are not immune to prosecution for murder under the law.

 

[Jarhyn]

You said it would be appropriate to arrest someone if they were caught in the act. He was, the police were right there watching him do it. So he should have been detained before the murder was even accomplished, let alone before leaving the scene.

Well the other way to resolve this is to smuggle in an assumption that the law should operate differently for police.

The law must operate differently for police in many respects. But they are not immune to prosecution for murder under the law.

I don't agree. The law can, in fact, be written neutrally with respect to police status and instead be written with respect to the actions being performed and the caveats cut out for enforcement of arrest and self defense with relation to the illegal acts of others. It may, in many respects, become written around the role of a cop in a way that only a person deputized by the government could accomplish, but that would not necessarily have to be the case.

Cutting out the rights to perform some act (physically striking someone), for example when the other person is performs an act fundamentally and unilaterally threatening to the first party, for the purposes of self defense or apprehension of the person performing the originally criminal act, and if the person committing the assault uses this defense in their actions and investigation is not made or yields that the action was unnecessary, then charges can be doubled and any legal authorization to use force in the apprehension of unilateral assault will be revoked.

 

[Deepak]

You said it would be appropriate to arrest someone if they were caught in the act. He was, the police were right there watching him do it. So he should have been detained before the murder was even accomplished, let alone before leaving the scene.

Well the other way to resolve this is to smuggle in an assumption that the law should operate differently for police.

The law must operate differently for police in many respects. But they are not immune to prosecution for murder under the law.

Not in the abstract, but in this instance.

Chauvin's actions furthered no state purpose. Any debate on whether the law must operated differently or not in many respects is separate from whether Chauvin specifically should have enjoyed his freedom for as long as he did, after doing what he did, with the evidence available of what he did.

If a case is made where the law must operate differently, then that argument should be offered after the event happens. The smuggled assumption is that he deserves special treatment as police simply because he's police, not that there was some police function that he was fulfilling that required his behavior.

It's perverse to require police to be convicted of crimes before they are arrested. It's injustice to not even require a justification for the act in the face of evidence that goes well beyond probable cause for an arrest were it any private citizen.

 

[Derec]

t's perverse to require police to be convicted of crimes before they are arrested.

It would be, if anybody was saying anything like that.

 

[Derec]

What kind of moron puts 5 MB of gifs into a post?

Do you police attachment size for any other posters, or should I be flattered by such moronic attention?

 

[Derec]

Let's just say I don't hold out much hope for someone who doesn't understand that all I've done is point out facts and the self-stated affiliations of other people, with regards to race. They claim people are racist for pointing out the fact that other people have an open and tracked history of racially biased violence, and that people causing damage and recruiting terrorists are doing it with an openly racist agenda.

You don't understand that just because some rioters are white doesn't make them "white supremacist" or otherwise on the Right. Plenty of white people (many in this forum too)

I have also criticized you for defending looting and destroying businesses you personally don't like.

It would be like calling someone racist for saying "Repoman is a white nationalist" when it is echoing his own statements.

He is a white nationalist. I am not. Are you capable of perceiving that distinction?
And say what you will about repo, at least he is consistent in that he gives the same consideration he wants for himself to black nationalists too. People like you are inconsistent though - you support black nationalists but abhor white ones. Why, if not out of racism?

The white nationalists with white nationalist insignias on their truck rolling around north Minneapolis with rifles shooting at people put the white nationalist insignias on their own truck; I'm just saying what they did.

And I am not saying such people don't exist. But just because they exist does not mean they are the totality of white people rioting in Minneapolis. It certainly doesn't mean that leftist anarchists or antifas didn't participate in rioting on your side. And yes, I assign you a side in rioting/looting/arson as you specifically said that you support destruction of certain businesses.

Chauvin had use of force complaints, and killed 8 people,

He was cleared of all but one of those complaints, and it is a bold-faced lie that he killed eight people. He killed one, Wayne Reyes, and it was justified.

Minneapolis City Council records showed that Chauvin moonlighted as a bouncer at a downtown Latin nightclub and was among a group of six officers who opened fire on a stabbing suspect in 2006 after a chase that ended when the suspect pointed a sawn-off shotgun at them.The suspect, Wayne Reyes, was hit multiple times and died, and a grand jury decided the use of force was justified.

So let's not just make stuff up, ok?

all people of color,

Well, Wayne Reyes was "of color", and I guess the other seven people you made up were "of color" too then?
What were their names?

I didn't make the white St Paul cop commit the vandalism that the cops somehow knew about within seconds of him doing it, despite not being visible to any of the other cops, which they then used as an excuse to open fire on PoC protestors.

You are right, you didn't make that up, somebody on Twitter did. You just keep repeating it over and over no matter how many times it's been pointed out to you that there is no evidence for it.

They don't seem to understand that the situation has a racial bias, and I'm not making any attempt to smear white people. I only give a shit about tearing down white racists. But they somehow extend that to all white people.

Well you are making the leap from "he is white" to "he must be a white supremacist".

They are making the bold leap of logic that hating white racists is hating all white people, or that wanting to see equity in wealth reach communities of color, which have been starved for such resources by a lack of economic momentum.

I would love to see black people achieve higher economic momentum. But I do not want it to be achieved through so-called affirmative action or by discriminating against white people in admissions or hiring or granting city contracts.
I live in Atlanta. A very diverse city. Plenty of black people. I have NEVER EVER, in all my years living here taken race into account as to whom to give my business to. But business should be earned, not given automatically as some sort of "affirmative action".

Edit: they also don't seem to understand, even after multiple posts about the racism of the Black Isrealites, that I can hate all racism while pointing out that this particular set of incidents is driven by anti-black white racists.

I'll give you the Black Israelites. And I detest white racists too. So we can agree on some things at least.

 

[Deepak]

What kind of moron puts 5 MB of gifs into a post?

Do you police attachment size for any other posters, or should I be flattered by such moronic attention?

What a clown - to reply to me then try to pull the policing card.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow, so, apparently I made things up when noting that a white person vandalized AutoZone when there is video of him doing it... Video wherein the guy doing it is confronted by black people and then runs away like a fucking bitch.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There are no solutions to all this shit, because everything that works is ruled out.

There are at least 3 solutions to all the problems listed here so far:

1. Shoot the looters (not this time, but for future mass riots)

Require the cops (shooters) to wear their camera and have it running whenever they shoot a looter. And guarantee that the shooting is recorded immediately and transmitted/preserved, regardless of any damage to the camera at the site. Make sure the shooting takes place just as the looter is breaking a window or running out of the store carrying merchandise. So there is irrefutable evidence that the one shot was a looter.

And have drones (or whatever) overhead, nearby, announcing that all looters will be shot on sight.

There would be nothing anti-Black about shooting the looters, since the evidence is that most of the looters are White.


2. Progressive property tax. The higher an owner's total property (real estate) value is, the higher is the tax rate on the property. With tax brackets, the same as progressive income tax.

Such a tax would lead to redistribution of property away from the more wealthy corporate owners toward the less wealthy local owners and families and individuals.


3. Hire more Black cops, using even quotas or whatever system ensures that the percent of Black cops increases. Even if this wouldn't reduce the number of Blacks killed by cops, at least it would help correct false perceptions that White racist cops are targeting Blacks.


But all three of these are automatically ruled out, for no good reason, except that it's just against the popular superstitions/myths/prejudices of our society.

It's difficult to solve problems when the best solutions are ruled out by the popular decadent mindset.

 

[George S]

I recently came across the claim that racism is instinctive. That is, those human beings who could recognize their tribe and have us/them feelings survived better than those who could not and there was a genetic component. This instinct may well be present in other mammals. My tribe/pack/herd is to be protected as if they were my child. They are, in fact, similar genetic heritage.
Human beings are instinctively profilers. We have first impressions influenced by stereotypes. It is instinctive. It takes moral effort to overcome instincts. We are instinctively programmed to do as much sex as possible. It takes moral effort to be sexually faithful. We are instinctively programmed to treat others who are not like us visually as possible threats. It takes moral effort to judge each individual individually because it is overriding animal instinct.
Whites are racist. Blacks are racist. Orientals are racist. All because we are all human beings. Technically my race is human.
Judge not by the color of the skin but by the content of the character. But we do judge a group by individual members we have encountered. That's human, too.

 

[Jarhyn]

Given the similarity of humans, and the nature of momentum, there are only two ways to add economic momentum to a group: reduce friction, and impart force.

Currently, economic friction comes from one primary source: gatekeeper decision-making. If someone applies to a loan, the friction is exactly the resistance applied by the decision-maker. Whether we are talking education or loans, or housing or policing, this is true. "Affirmative action" is the reduction of economic friction targeting populations with low economic momentum. It is a zero sum game, however. These are facts that cannot be avoided. In fact economic friction scales with respect to momentum. Less momentum means more friction, in the current state of America. Further, the correlation/causation conflation that humans are prone to escalates friction when someone is visually identifiable as belonging to a group with low economic momentum. Hence race based affirmative action.

I second is increasing economic force. This means increasing economic potential within a population. Economic force, quite literally, equates to money, relative to current economic momentum momentum: a struggling family gets more momentum from 1000 dollars in their pocket than a millionaire. This means that economic force can be achieved exactly one way: give them money.

That money, however, will be less effective in any situation where friction is not reduced, much I. The way physical friction operates: static friction is more difficult to overcome than dynamic friction and dynamic friction grinds down and erodes frictive surfaces over time.

Both of these things are widely railed against by the GOP and conservatives.

I didn't make these realities exist; they just do, as a function of how money and opportunity and economic momentum function. So either accept your own claims that you wish there to be more momentum within hurting populations and allow the implementation of solutions, or admit that you do not really want that. Because to honestly claim to want something, you have to accept the solutions to it.

All other things being equal, we ought decide on the option that reduces economic friction for those who have little economic momentum.

 

[blastula]

Wow, so, apparently I made things up when noting that a white person vandalized AutoZone when there is video of him doing it... Video wherein the guy doing it is confronted by black people and then runs away like a fucking bitch.

Nobody's questioning whether he's white. It's whether he's a a cop which you have said. Also questioning your claims about white nationalists. You have given no evidence for these claims.

 

[Toni]

I recently came across the claim that racism is instinctive. That is, those human beings who could recognize their tribe and have us/them feelings survived better than those who could not and there was a genetic component. This instinct may well be present in other mammals. My tribe/pack/herd is to be protected as if they were my child. They are, in fact, similar genetic heritage.
Human beings are instinctively profilers. We have first impressions influenced by stereotypes. It is instinctive. It takes moral effort to overcome instincts. We are instinctively programmed to do as much sex as possible. It takes moral effort to be sexually faithful. We are instinctively programmed to treat others who are not like us visually as possible threats. It takes moral effort to judge each individual individually because it is overriding animal instinct.
Whites are racist. Blacks are racist. Orientals are racist. All because we are all human beings. Technically my race is human.
Judge not by the color of the skin but by the content of the character. But we do judge a group by individual members we have encountered. That's human, too.

I think that some people are instinctively more apprehensive when they see someone who is a stranger to them, and more so if that person looks demonstrably different than the people with whom they are familiar. For instance, some people are uncomfortable or apprehensive around someone who is disabled--in a wheel chair, hearing impaired, blind, with an artificial limb. I am purposely mentioning people who do not exhibit markedly different behaviors than those who do not have that particular disability--and people who could be any race or gender or ethnicity.

Some people are much more disturbed by people who behave in ways that are very different from what they see as 'the norm.' Examples could be: an autistic individual making a lot of noise or stemming or acting out --or it could be a group of people who are being boisterous and 'loud,' loud being a relative term.

Some people are freaked out by a group of nuns in habits or priests in robes or Amish people.

Again, I am purposely listing things that some people are freaked out by which are not race based, although in the US at least, most nuns in habits or priests in robes and Amish are white.


In all of these instances, we expect people to control their discomfort--and their curiosity and simply accept that: that gentleman uses a cane to help him navigate because he is blind or that person is in a wheel chair because they cannot walk or is using sign language or lip reading because they don't hear or dresses that way because of their religious or cultural beliefs. And we are expected and do expect ourselves and others to treat these people with the same courtesy and respect as we would our parents or grandparents or neighbors or siblings or favorite aunt or whatever. We expect that we will open a door or slow down and explain again or give people some privacy. We expect that we will accommodate as necessary to help the other person function fully. AND we might feel very comfortable talking with these people. Even if we went to parochial school and had our knuckles rapped by the nuns, we don't expect to be attacked by a pack of nuns.

So, we are more than capable of treating people who look different than we do with courtesy and respect--and we expect others to do so as well.

Absolutely, it is more natural for some people to do so than for others. Some people are more apprehensive when confronted with someone who looks different. That doesn't make it the problem of the person who looks different. Or shouldn't.

 

[George S]

Absolutely, it is more natural for some people to do so than for others. Some people are more apprehensive when confronted with someone who looks different. That doesn't make it the problem of the person who looks different. Or shouldn't.

It shouldn't indeed. Instinct ... reality: to humans it does. So in my encounter with one black man (we became friendly and conversed for a few hours) I had to recognize that he had a stereotype for an old white guy. After a couple of hours, we, in fact, discussed stereotyping and we both agreed we each had, as an individual, violated the other's initial stereotype and were more like than unlike.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow, so, apparently I made things up when noting that a white person vandalized AutoZone when there is video of him doing it... Video wherein the guy doing it is confronted by black people and then runs away like a fucking bitch.

Nobody's questioning whether he's white. It's whether he's a a cop which you have said. Also questioning your claims about white nationalists. You have given no evidence for these claims.

I've offered to provide evidence to some people in trust. But we are talking about evidence in ongoing investigations at this point, and to put it frankly, that's not information that should be shared on an open forum, especially not one with active white nationalists.

 

[ruby sparks]

Absolutely, it is more natural for some people to do so than for others. Some people are more apprehensive when confronted with someone who looks different. That doesn't make it the problem of the person who looks different. Or shouldn't.

It shouldn't indeed. Instinct ... reality: to humans it does. So in my encounter with one black man (we became friendly and conversed for a few hours) I had to recognize that he had a stereotype for an old white guy. After a couple of hours, we, in fact, discussed stereotyping and we both agreed we each had, as an individual, violated the other's initial stereotype and were more like than unlike.

It seems to me to be basic, evolved, ‘hardwired’, human ingroup/outgroup psychology. It has been observed in infants. Humans much prefer ‘perceived ingroup’ and will be biased in favour of it, however defined (‘likes same food as me’ in one experiment on infants).

Now, when you add into that basic framework that one (perceived) subgroup (one subset of all humans) rises above another, in status or economic or power terms, which tends to happen, over time, for a wide variety of complicated reasons, then especially if the perceived subgroups interact or coexist or merely rub up against one another (which also tends to happen, especially in a crowded world) I think you start to get patterns of privilege, inequality and unfair advantage/disadvantage.

As a white, straight, ‘western’ male, I automatically inherited a bunch of advantages I did not have to earn, because of patterns that had been established long before I was born.

All other things being equal and speaking generally, even a comparatively under-advantaged white person will still have a skin colour advantage over his darker-skinned neighbour and fellow human, and this advantage may be called a privilege because it is unearned.

Word up: the world is a place of competition. Advantages matter, a lot. Humans are essentially self-interested (albeit with strong social/reciprocal factors being involved).

In many ways, people utilise their advantages and privileges simply because they can and because it’s natural animal behaviour.

Layer on top of this what is called human morality.

Want to motivate someone to be good to you, share with you or care about your interests? Give them a good reason to.

Sorry if there’s no sugar coating on that.

Although in a way there is. It’s called mutual self interest. It doesn’t necessarily trump competition, when the chips are down, but it can often figure.

See also: game theory.

The alternative approach is to beat the perceived outgroup in battle (armed or political) or be able to viably threaten to (this would come under the ‘giving them a good reason’ heading mentioned above).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There were police right there while it happened. How is that not "caught in the act"??

The other police there didn't attempt to arrest him. He was arrested because of the video--that's not immediate.

You said it would be appropriate to arrest someone if they were caught in the act. He was, the police were right there watching him do it. So he should have been detained before the murder was even accomplished, let alone before leaving the scene.

You misunderstood--I didn't mean caught on video, I meant arrested as they were committing the crime. If you have to go pick them up it should be investigate first, then arrest.

 

[Jarhyn]

You said it would be appropriate to arrest someone if they were caught in the act. He was, the police were right there watching him do it. So he should have been detained before the murder was even accomplished, let alone before leaving the scene.

You misunderstood--I didn't mean caught on video, I meant arrested as they were committing the crime. If you have to go pick them up it should be investigate first, then arrest.

And that investigation literally takes 8 and a half minutes: the time it takes to watch the video of a clear third degree murder.

 

[Derec]

I've offered to provide evidence to some people in trust. But we are talking about evidence in ongoing investigations at this point, and to put it frankly, that's not information that should be shared on an open forum, especially not one with active white nationalists.

Ah the claim to secret evidence that only the select few can be trusted with. What a joke!

By the way, I am still waiting for the names of the 7 imaginary people killed by Derek Chauvin.

 

[Derec]

Nobody's questioning whether he's white. It's whether he's a a cop which you have said. Also questioning your claims about white nationalists. You have given no evidence for these claims.

Exactly.
In addition, Jarhyn also lied about there having been eight (8) people whom Chauvin killed. In reality, he only (possibly, other cops at the scene fired too) killed one person, Wayne Reyes, and that was justified because the perp pointed a shotgun at police.